User talk:Jojalozzo/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Editing Talk
Perhaps you were unaware that -at the least- it's frowned upon for an editor to edit another's Talk comments. Please don't do it again (see diff). Thanks! --AuthorityTam (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- My apologies. I meant to edit my own entry there and edited yours by mistake. Jojalozzo (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks.
Thank you for quoting out the content at Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article that was applicable to the criticism section. Always glad to learn new things, and unlearn wrong things, though I fear it does take me longer than a lot of folk. :) Also, though I am sure you don't need the approval of random editors, Thanks! for the work on the 1421 book article.- Sinneed 03:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- I did sign them but had mistakenly selected an option in the user preferences that triggered your coming around and adding another signature after mine. I've fixed it so you can go back to your charging bay. Thanks! Jojalozzo (talk) 03:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Per LEADCITE, citations in the lead are not necessary if the statements are sourced in the body text. The tautology of Menzies' arguments is sourced to the reviews by Gordan and Finlay. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Didn't know that. Thanks! Jojalozzo (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
List of animal names
My edit summary said it clearly: "rm unreferenced". Please don't restore unreferenced text without providing references. The article is tagged for missing references since December 2007! Please don't revert other people's edits without providing counter-arguments in edit summary, preferably after discussion. - Altenmann >t 16:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Please don't revert other people's edits without providing counter-arguments in edit summary, preferably after discussion. - does this apply to admins too or are they exempt as shown by an admin reverting at Buir Lake without counter-arguments nor discussion? TrueColour (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- "rm unreferenced" as a justification for removing Goldfinch, Moose and other common animal names does not seem reasonable. These animals have WP articles about them. Isn't that reference enough? I have replaced those entries. Please open a discussion topic on the talk page before removing them again. Jojalozzo (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
animal names
Please don't restore removed unreferenced text. - Altenmann >t 04:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
You appear to be ignoring all the places I have tried to engage you in discussion. Why does a moose or a goldfinch need a reference??? Jojalozzo (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Problems with Altenman
It looks like you have had problems with Altenman too. Want to trade notes?
Sean7phil (talk) 08:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
|
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 (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Requesting your opinion
Hi. I've started a discussion here. (Actually, it's a restart of a prior discussion that went cold; you can just scroll directly down to the first post I made today in that section if you want.) Can you offer your thoughts? I think it's very important. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
'Characterization as religious movement'
I recently reverted your edit on the “Landmark Education” page, for reasons which I explain at the talk page. As I note there, I think it’s actually the whole section of the article that is problematic, not so much the exact wording of that sentence. I would be interested to hear your views. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Minimisation/Magnification/Cognitive distortion
This is a confusing but very interesting area. There are several issues:
- there is obviously overlap between defense mechanisms and cognitive distortions - it looks like cognitive distortions may be a subset of defense mechanisms. To make it even more confusing some defense mechanisms such as rationalisation are also listed as fallacies.
- "Disqualifying the positive" in cognitive distortions. I cover that as an example of minimization in Minimisation (psychology) but my supporting citation is second rate.
- The academic literature is very inconsistent when referring to the opposite of minimisation and often just refers to "exaggeration". The natural name would be "maximisation" which i have seen a few times. But I will use "magnification" if that is the best name. I was working on a sandbox article see User:Penbat/exaggeration_(psychology) --Penbat (talk) 08:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Moved to Talk:Minimisation (psychology) Jojalozzo (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
A warm welcome
Are you a new editor? Nice to see you joined. I hope to see you soon...
Hi, Jojalozzo, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, which can be fixed and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!
If you have any questions, feel free to post a question on the talk page. And once again — Welcome! Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 08:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC) | |||||||
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
|
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 (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Exaggeration and Minimisation
please see "Edits_by_User:Jojalozzo_here_and_in_exaggeration" at Talk:Minimisation_(psychology) --Penbat (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Rollback
Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:
- Rollback gives you access to certain tools, including Huggle, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
- Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
- Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
- Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
- Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
- You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
- You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page
- If you have any questions, please do let me know.
--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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 Nettrom (talk), 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 (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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 Nettrom (talk), 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 (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Military Governors installed
Thanks for your quality edit on Military Governors installed. I put this section in because I believed it was part of the Reconstruction Era of the United States. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I am am very interested in but just learning about this period in US history and mostly used basic editing techniques to try to improve what you started. I appreciate your contributions there and hope you can keep adding on. Jojalozzo 01:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is good in that you get some things that just are not mentioned or barely gone over in text books. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
About Vedic Calculation Article
I understood it well! I have started a page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vinaymangal/Vedic_time_travel for making the same table in Wiki Table Format. Can you help in getting the format right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinaymangal (talk • contribs) 07:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll have a look. To make this a real Wikipedia article we need some good, notable expert references for the terminology and conversions. Can you supply those? Jojalozzo 17:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Another thing to bring this up to WP standrads would be a couple of sentences describing what this is, where the terms and values come from, why it is important. Jojalozzo
Thanks a lot for making the page worth a view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vinaymangal/Vedic_time_travel. I wish to add sevral references and notable expert references... Can we take it up through an e-Mail conversation as I don't know anything about editing Wiki pages..!! my email ID is vinaymangal@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinaymangal (talk • contribs) 12:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't mind adding the references if you want to list them here and tell me where they should go in the article. It's also not that hard to do (you can read about it at Wikipedia:Citation) but I'd be glad to add the refs for you. I think it would be great to have a reference for every term and conversion that can't be inferred from the information in the article. Jojalozzo 13:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
BIPV image
Hello, I noticed you restored the image I removed from the Building-integrated photovoltaics article, "File:Sole PowerTile3.JPG". I only removed it because I'm seeing it as a negative - otherwise I would have left it well alone - I just wondered, are you seeing it as a positive? I'm using an iMac, by the way, and have seen this phenomenon before, but not for some years. I found that, if I click through to the image itself, I do see it as a positive, which seems odd, but then I know nothing about how such images are actually created! I tried viewing the same image via Internet Explorer 8 on Windows XP, and it wouldn't show it at all, from the BIPV article down to the image itself. Incidentally, you may have noticed that the image is listed as possibly unfree, TinEye reporting multiple copies on the web: otherwise I might've tried to capture the positive image and use it as a modification of the existing image file. Thanks for your time, I'd be interested to hear from you about this. Nortonius (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah! Yes, the tiles are blue because they are made of PV material and are generating electricity!! This is an article about BIPV, right? :-) Jojalozzo 14:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hello, thanks for the response - yes, that's the article, about BIPV - but, did you get what I meant about how I'm seeing the image as a photographic negative? In other words, there seems to be a problem with how the image displays, I'm not seeing the tiles as blue, and I've checked this out on more than one computer! As is normal in a photographic negative, I'm seeing dark areas as light, and vice versa, and I'm seeing blue as yellow, and vice versa! So, I was asking if you're seeing this image on your display in normal colours - I take it from your response that the answer to this is "yes" - am I right? Thanks again. Nortonius (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Photo looks correct here. Tiles are blue as I said. I'm using firefox on Windows XP. If you go to the solar tile web site does it look ok? Jojalozzo 15:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- In the discussion about this image's copyright, there is mention of it being color enhanced, i.e. modified from the original. Perhaps something was done to the color palette that makes it non-jpg-compliant so it doesn't work on all platforms with all image software. Jojalozzo 15:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yup, that's pretty much what I thought - photo looks fine everywhere except WP, unless you're using a particular browser (in your case Firefox), because it's "non-jpg-compliant", as you say - and, now you'll understand why I removed the image last night, not because of the spam, or because I didn't like it, but because it's not displaying correctly for me! :-) As I said earlier (in my first post on this topic), I've checked this now in Internet Explorer 8 on Windows XP, and on my iMac (in Safari 5 on Mac OS 10.6.4), and since then I've also checked it on an iPhone, and in all these configurations it shows as a negative, except in IE8 on Windows XP it doesn't show at all. What to do, I wonder...! As I also said earlier, I'd try to fix it, but it may be deleted as "unfree"! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC) p.s. A friend using IE8 on Windows 7 just reported to me that the image won't show at all for him either...
- Excellent outcome, well done and thanks! If you look at the metadata for the image, it's actually a Photoshop image, which will be why it's not displaying properly, and if you look closely at the image itself, you can see that it's not even really a "photograph" - it's more like an "artist's impression". There's been a fair bit of related spam that I've noticed in the last day or so, across a number of articles, and it'll be good to see the back of this example. Thanks again. Nortonius (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Underfloor Heating Topic
Greetings Jojalozzo,
I've spent the past several days rebuilding the entire underfloor heating topic and am essentially done until I can find further time.
Could Wikipedia now review it for POV and citation issues so we can have the notices removed.
Thanks,
RBean (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
___
Hi Jojalozzo,
It appears a commentor has an issue with the article and has tagged it for a complete rewrite...I'm new this so don't know if this type of tagging is debated before letting these tags remain. If it's a true statement - then I'm ok reverting the article back to its original version which wasn't tagged for a complete rewrite.
Comments?
RBean (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Invitation to edit
Thanks for your excellent comment about number of page views being a more important parameter here. I didn't give it the acknowledgment it was due. It's now number 1 of 5 selection criteria for articles for the trial. If you have any more thoughts, please share! 
Anthony (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
List of poisonous animals
You're not allowed to add redlinked categories (i.e. categories that don't exist) to articles and call them properly categorized. The {{uncat}} tag has to stay on the article until you've found and added an appropriate category that actually exists. Bearcat (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, didn't realize link was red. It was removed without explanation. Jojalozzo 03:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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 Nettrom (talk), 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 (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Rescue
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armageddon theology WritersCramp (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Your answer to my idea about Religion being a Psuedoscience
Hey - I just want to say thanks. It is pretty rare when a person talks to another user they disagree with, and there is no initial bashing, no "hidden insults" at the person. Instead, you offered a polite, and intelligent explaination of YOUR view of the subject - and to be honest, I agree with it. Although I felt strongly that Religion pursues and tries to explain (and accepts and pushes as absolute fact) nearly every last field of Science, and I felt that made it a Psuedoscience, regardless if Religion calls itself a science.
But your explanation was definitely superior to mine. Even if the "pretending to be a Science" issue is excluded, you were still correct and brought up enough points that proved that I was, quite frankly, plain wrong. I am a new user here and a long time user - I've been wanting to contribute, but every turn I make, I find that myself (and virutally anyone who suggests an idea) gets a response that has obvious signs of insult to the poster, and express their own idea with 0 facts, poor arguements and otherwise.
But you were the FIRST person I have seen so far that responded in an acedemic, professional, and polite manner - even after I began to be irritated in arguing with people like those I mentioned. Thanks a ton for that, it made we want to continue trying to help making wikipedia a better place, even though I am new. And it inspires me to take a much more formal and professional approach than I have, like you did, to research the facts instead of state my opinions.
Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeyo14 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay...
I am the simple crusader! I don't know if you realize that this is what I am doing, but simplification is my goal on wikipedia. If we are to spread knowledge, we must make sure that wikipedia is untainted by complexity. We must simplify, and that is what I am doing. Please, please, I beg of you, don't just delete information (if at all possible). WIkipedia pages should be neutral, even if it means informing the masses of the opposition. WE must achieve this goal of simplicity. It is for the good of the entire population. Knowledge is power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawstubes (talk • contribs) 03:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
If that were so, then I would think you'd like the simple version of the Perpetual motion article as it is now. Your embellishments such as etymologies and dictionary definitions are are not making it clearer. Jojalozzo 03:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
What? "clearer" ... You want it to be invisible? What are you... satan? (that is called a joke)
etymology is very appropriate for an encyclopedia. I don't see why you think it isn't. And I didn't put dictionary definitions in there. Understand that a dictionary gives ALL definitions of a word, not just one, and it also provides CONTEXT information. Just saying what perpetual motion means in the words of it's benefactor, in no way, violates wikipedias quality standards.
And again, I would like to remind you that just deleting information is harmful. As an editor you are obligated to figure out where that information belongs in the article, not to just delete it. Especially if that information is important to the topic.
Thanks
Literal is everything
Please understand, a literal explanation is necessary in all wiki leads. http://thesaurus.com/browse/literal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawstubes (talk • contribs) 03:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
That is incorrect and your approach is not helpful. Please stop edit warring and discuss this on the talk page. Jojalozzo 03:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
To war is to be in a state of confusion. If you held the value of words with higher respect, you would understand this. Please, explain why I am incorrect and also,if you would, explain how my edits are 'confusing' because unless they are, I am not 'warring'. Lawstubes (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and I have talked about this in the talk page. I have been TRYING to talk about this for MONTHS AND MONTHS. I'm done with the talk page.
Do what you like, but you are mongering war. You are deleting valuable information. In doing this, you are confusing people. You are creating confusion by not understanding what I am saying & violently opposing it. Take a minute and realize, you are actually flawed. I've been peacefully contemplating this for the greater part of a year, and you fail to communicate in any way other than ' I RIGHT, YOU WRONG'... Think about it, I appreciate you and in no way wish to war, but you need to see how it is you that started this. I will remain peacefull, please don't be angry or upset, your knowledge is most important and everything you say, I will learn from.Lawstubes (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I do two things
there are two things that my edit adds to the lead, etymology and the fundamental reason why perpetual motion is widely accepted as a scientific impossibility..
I could cite a source relating to the latter (with the leading citations from the SCIENCE wikipedia), but the former I have already sourced. This isn't making the article less 'clear' as you put it. It actually provides understanding to those who don't understand WHY perpetual motion is impossible. It makes it simple.
Thank you sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawstubes (talk • contribs) 03:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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 Nettrom (talk), 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 (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Glitch at solar cell research
The first rule of editing Wikipedia is don't talk about editing Wikipedia. Second rule has to be fresh batteries in the cordless mouse. fixed, thanks for the note. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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 Nettrom (talk), 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 (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
GP questions
You reversed one of my edits. How do I ask you a question? George Plhak (talk) 13:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
You can ask here. :-) Jojalozzo 15:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Citation templates and formatting
Hi, I noticed you switched around the edit I'd made to Insurance on marketing. I'm mainly that you formatted the reference and expanded the citation template. This is immensely frustrating when I'm trying to edit pages, as all these expanded references mean that I have to scroll a ton. I wish you would collapse it - meaning that instead of breaking each parameter into its own line, you just let them flow together. I would really appreciate it. II | (t - c) 22:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry this is a problem for you though this is the first time I have heard of this problem. I much prefer citation templates be laid out so they can be easily read and edited rather than being unintelligibly compressed. I suggest you raise this on the discussion page and if the consensus for that article is to use compressed citation templates, I'll happily comply. Jojalozzo 23:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Template:Passive voice/sandbox
Template:Passive voice/sandbox, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Passive voice/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template:Passive voice/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Concentrated photovoltaics
Hi Jojalozzo. I noticed you are quite active in the above topic. Are you by any chance able to fill up this section? Rehman 09:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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 Nettrom (talk), 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 (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Added template for SuggestBot
Hi,
Thanks for being one of SuggestBot's users! I hope you have found the bot's suggestions useful.
We are in the process of switching from our previous list-based signup process to using templates and userboxes, and I have therefore added the appropriate template to your user talk page. You should receive the first set of suggestions within a day, and since we'll be automating SuggestBot you will from then on continue to receive them regularly at the desired frequency.
We now also have a userbox that you can use to let others know you're using SuggestBot, and if you don't want to clutter your user talk page the bot can post to a sub-page in your userspace. More information about the userbox and usage of the template is available on User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly.
If there are any questions, please don't hesitate to get in touch with me on my user talk page. Thanks again, Nettrom (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Menzies
Hi, in case you are interested in Finlay's review, I can send it to you. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Editors, labels
Hey, I see the work you've been doing on Pseudoscience, and having been around there for a few months, as well as working on Chiropractic in some depth, I get the gist of the kind of disputes that have been coming up when QG is involved. Suffice to say, I'm not a fan of the lack of collaboration or the one-sided interest in reliable sources and weight. Nonetheless, I find your recent use of the word 'troll' a bit much. If QG winds up topic-banned one day, it will be a chance for him to change his style or take a break from these topics which appear to link to a particular bias. But until then, I don't see how it works out to call him names. Maybe you can reconsider, use a different term, focus on the merits of discussions, or talk to other editors about broader community involvement. Either way, calling him a troll over and over will only get you topic-banned as well when some of this sh*t winds up at ArbCom. Meanwhile, there are several serious editors (Ludwigs, Hans, etc) who want to see pseudoscience described fully but not polemically, and I think a solution is not too distant. Ocaasi (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Good point. Thanks for the advice. My intention was to change everyone else's behavior to reduce disruption and reduce the attention QG received, not to call anyone names. I will see if I can do that another way in the future. Jojalozzo 17:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
{{you've got mail}} Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 07:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
pseudoscience
re your poll: I'm a little leery of this, but not sure what you're aiming for. this is a matter of reason, common sense, and policy, not really a matter in which there is a lot of room for differences of opinion. at best this is going to produce another stale discussion; at worst it will privilege superficial 'me too' type answers. I just wanted to point that out. --Ludwigs2 22:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we're past discussing this. QB hasn't responded to any requests for explanation. Simple (not superficial) statements of agreement or disagreement will be sufficient to determine if we have consensus or not. After weeks of discussion I think we're ready to check for consensus. The time for deep thought and debating points is past. Jojalozzo 00:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, ok. we'll see what happens. --Ludwigs2 04:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
primary sources
Hello, I noticed you deleted all the information i put down on the Grameen Foundation because they were primary resources. I am fairly new at editing and I am doing this for a class project for my University. I would very much appreciate any help or advice you could give me regarding my edits as well as allow me to make edits. Jvele (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC) jvele "That poor student was probably taken aback..."
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
The article Canadian Solar has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- This article is little more than commercial advertising for a manufacturing company. The only cited sources are primary sources.
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dolphin (t) 05:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
FYI: Pseudoscience editing is subject to restrictions
This note is to inform you that Pseudoscience articles are subject to editing restrictions, as outlined by the Arbitration Committee. Please read and familiarize yourself with this remedy. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Pseudoscience, Matute
Hey, I put this together with OrangeMarlin. The talk page is a bit hectic so I thought I'd try and get your feedback on it before proposing there. Let me know what you think:
- Pseudoscience and a lack of scientific literacy are a concern among scientists[1], teachers[2], and other professionals[3]. While pseudoscience in the paranormal realm regarding superstitions like astrology are typically physically harmless, pseudoscience in medicine[4] (quackery), law-enforcement[5] (psychic detectives), and psychiatry[6][7] (unproven techniques) can lead individuals to pursue harmful treatments and avoid helpful ones, in addition to expending time and money in the process.
- ^ http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7s2.htm
- ^ http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1662/0002-7685(2006)68%5B197%3ATIOTTN%5D2.0.CO%3B2
- ^ http://dlib.eastview.com/browse/doc/6670647
- ^ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1348/000712610X532210/abstract
- ^ http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/35/10/1215.short
- ^ http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=OY05uZUCaTsC&oi=fnd&pg=PA187&dq=is+pseudoscience+harmful&ots=-1FHlvaCZk&sig=ZYRpmIAejEANvuNfxU6ggYh1iKM#v=onepage&q&f=false
- ^ http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=U8cr8uHesvEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=is+pseudoscience+harmful&ots=FZO-OXbm5X&sig=6k3QifBA4fSehT9p9rEpF4I_XQA#v=onepage&q=is%20pseudoscience%20harmful&f=false
- Restricting Matute et al. to pseudo-medicine is certainly an improvement. However, aren't there sources that actually document the public health risks of quackery and provide citations to back them up? I don't see any reason to include Matute et al. except as backup to real solid, informative sources and even then it really not that good for that use. It's a great source for a section on why we are susceptible to pseudoscience (and I'd be willing to work on such a section - wish I'd thought of that 6 months ago) but it's just not about the negative effects of quackery and I don't see a good Wikipedian reason to use it here.
- Are there sources to allow us to include the impacts of pseudoscience in investment fraud?
- Jojalozzo 18:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Proposal
I replied to your comment and made a proposal. I'm a volunteer like everyone else. So please respect my time and let's get straight down to the work at hand, ok? QuackGuru (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
You claimed "You can see the full text on the authors' web site. (This paper was not published in the intended issue (11/2010) of the BJP but exists as a preprint. There is no explanation for its exclusion from the intended issue and there are no published plans to include it in a future issue.) Jojalozzo 02:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)"
- Where is your evidence the source was withrawn or never published. QuackGuru (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Not responding on my talk page. Bring this up in context. Jojalozzo 01:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- You claimed "there are no published plans to include it in a future issue." How did you come to that conclusion. QuackGuru (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- I asked you to stop this less than an hour ago as I have done other times you have left messages for me about the Matute paper. Continuing to post here is further evidence of your difficulty hearing what others say. I will seek administrative assistance if you post anything further about the Matutue paper on this page. Jojalozzo 01:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- You claimed "there are no published plans to include it in a future issue." How did you come to that conclusion. QuackGuru (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Not responding on my talk page. Bring this up in context. Jojalozzo 01:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Pseudoscience
The mainstream source is precisly about pseudoscience.
The serious matters that are a threat to public health are:
"The ‘Keep libel laws out of science’ campaign was launched on 4 June 2009, in the UK. Simon Singh, a science writer who alerted the public about the lack of evidence supporting chiropractic treatments, was sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association (Sense about Science, 2009). Similar examples can be found in almost any country. In Spain, another science writer, Luis Alfonso Ga´mez, was also sued after he alerted the public on the lack of evidence supporting the claims of a popular pseudoscientist (Ga´mez, 2007). In the USA, 54% of the population believes in psychic healing and 36% believe in telepathy (Newport & Strausberg, 2001). In Europe, the statistics are not too different. According to the Special Eurobarometer on Science and Technology (European Commission, 2005), and just to mention a few examples, a high percentage of Europeans consider homeopathy (34%) and horoscopes (13%) to be good science. Moreover, ‘the past decade has witnessed acceleration both in consumer interest in and use of CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) practices and/or products. Surveys indicate that those with the most serious and debilitating medical conditions, such as cancer, chronic pain, and HIV, tend to be the most frequent users of the CAM practices’ (White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy, 2002, p. 15). Elements of the latest USA presidential campaign have also been frequently cited as examples of how superstitious beliefs of all types are still happily alive and promoted in our Western societies (e.g., Katz, 2008). On another, quite dramatic example, Science Magazine recently alerted about the increase in ‘stem cell tourism’, which consists of travelling to another country in the hope of finding a stem cell-based treatment for a disease when such a treatment has not yet been approved in one’s own country (Kiatpongsan & Sipp, 2009). This being the current state of affairs it is not easy to counteract the power and credibility of pseudoscience."
The threat to public health is a statement made as a conclusion rather than an assumption. This is indeed about the topic pseudoscience according to the source. For example, "This being the current state of affairs it is not easy to counteract the power and credibility of pseudoscience."
One of the main pseudoscience points from full text is: "As preoccupied and active as many governmental and sceptical organizations are in their fight against pseudoscience, quackery, superstitions and related problems, their efforts in making the public understand the scientific facts required to make good and informed decisions are not always as effective as they should be. Pseudoscience can be defined as any belief or practice that pretends to be scientific but lacks supporting evidence. Quackery is a particular type of pseudoscience that refers to medical treatments. Superstitions are irrational beliefs that normally involve cause–effect relations that are not real, as those found in pseudoscience and quackery. These are a serious matter of public health and educational policy in which many variables are involved."
The authors summarised the public health issue in the abstract. According to the source pseudoscience is a serious matter that threatens public health. It is WP:OR if we don't summarise the main pseudoscience points because it would be taking the source out of context.
From abstract: "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved."
Matute H, Yarritu I, Vadillo MA (2010). "Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience". Br J Psychol. doi:10.1348/000712610X532210. PMID 21092400.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
As a point of fact, there are hundreds of WP:V-compliant sources on the subject. However, the Matute source is peer-reviewed and should be given WP:WEIGHT. The text and source meets WP:SOURCES. It would be a violation of NPOV to imply a serious dispute where there is none. The text does not need to be attributed becuase editors disgree with researchers. I think that a summary of Matutue et al. does contribute a lot to Pseudoscience#Demographics, Pseudoscience#Psychological explanations and Pseudoscience#Health and education implications. The text passes V. Please don't delete sourced text again. QuackGuru (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
You are unable to reply because it seems you have no argument. What is your argument for deleting sourced text? QuackGuru (talk) 03:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- This is not the proper place for this discussion. I have made my arguments many times on Talk:Pseudoscience. Please go back there and keep the discussion where it belongs. Jojalozzo 14:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Pseudoscience disruption
- You misrepresented the mainstream source
You claimed at the Fringe theories noticeboard:
"Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context." (my emphasis)
I am one of the editors who finds this source inappropriate for the claims that QuackGuru wishes to make in the Pseudoscience article. This paper is about the psychology of pseudoscience and cognitive distortion and would be a very good source for that. However, the authors make general and unsupported claims about the public health risks of pseudoscience that are a) tangential to the research or even to psychology in general and b) apply only to quackery and not the whole field of pseudoscience. No other good sources have been located to support these extremely broad claims. While this source is reliable within it's domain and is welcome for use in the section on the psychology of pseudoscience, it is unsuited as the sole basis for claims about the public health risks of pseudoscience except in the more narrow case of quackery (for which many superior references exist).
You can see the full text on the authors' web site. (This paper was not published in the intended issue (11/2010) of the BJP but exists as a preprint. There is no explanation for its exclusion from the intended issue and there are no published plans to include it in a future issue.) Jojalozzo 02:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)" See Fringe theories noticeboard.
You find yourself engaging in discussions about the reliability of sources that substantially meet the criteria for reliable sources.
- There is nothing wrong with questioning the reliability of sources, to a point. But there is a limit to how far one may reasonably go in an effort to discredit the validity of what most other contributors consider to be reliable sources, especially when multiple sources are being questioned in this manner. This may take the form of arguing about the number or validity of the sources cited by the sources. The danger here is in judging the reliability of sources by how well they support the desired viewpoint.
You mislead other editors. The part you wrote "This paper was not published in the intended issue (11/2010) of the BJP but exists as a preprint. There is no explanation for its exclusion from the intended issue and there are no published plans to include it in a future issue."
- You claim the source is unreliable and was never intended to be published. This is not true. Please stop misrepesenting the reliability of sources. Your misrepresenting of the source led to you deleting an entire paragraph from a peer-reviewed source. Do you understand your behaviour is Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.
- Repeated pattern of violating core Wikipedia poilices
Jojalozzo, do you agree you will stop violating core Wikipedia policies?
- Troll accusation
What is the abbrevation dnft stand for? Why did write in part: If not, let's stop cooking this trollish feast.?
- Copy editing comment in edit summary
You claimed "minor cleanup, a little copy editing". This was recently added text. How could the edit be a copy edit?
- WP:ASF violation
- A simple formulation
Assert facts, including facts about opinions--but don't assert opinions themselves. What does this mean?
"What we mean is that when it is a fact, for this policy, (a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute) it can be asserted without prefixing it with "(Source) says that ...", and when it is an opinion (a matter which is subject to dispute) it can be attributed using this sort of inline-text attribution. Undisputed findings of reliable sources can be asserted without in-text attribution. In-text attribution is recommeded where sources disagree, not where editors disagree.
Most facts, except the most obvious ones - like “Mars is a planet” and “Plato was a philosopher” - must be verified through a reliable source regardless of whether it is a truthful statement. However, for WP:ASF, it is how we present the verified text from reliable sources.
Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts and only facts, in this sense. Where we might want to state opinions, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them.
Requiring an inline qualifier for widespread consensus of reliable sources on the grounds that it is "opinion" would allow a contrarian reader to insist on an inline qualifier for material about which there is no serious dispute, using the argument that the material is an "opinion". This would mean, in the end, that all material in Wikipedia would require an inline qualifier, even if only one Wikipedia editor insisted on it, which is not the goal of ASF. Presenting a "fact" as an "opinion" is needlessly attributing uncontroversial statements, and so creating the appearance of doubt or disagreement where there is none."
When there is no serious dispute there in no need to undermine reliable sources with in-text attribution. Do you concur? You have refused to collabrate on the talk page in oast and now I am forced to warn you on your talk page of your continued policy violations and tendentious behaviour. You have not made arguments on the talk page to justify the policy violations such as the OR or deleting an entire paragraph. QuackGuru (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- As I have said before, the dispute over Matute et al. involves other editors on the Pseudoscience article. Please post your concerns on the talk page there and I will respond, assuming you have something new to contribute and you can do so concisely and clearly. I will not respond to accusatory questions.
- Likewise if you have concerns with what I posted on Fringe theories noticeboard please post them there. There is no need to address any of these issues here. Jojalozzo 19:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Jojalozzo, does Wikipedia accept personal opinions on certain topics/pages? I mean, can I change a definition from what it is now to what I think it should be?
Kellygirlaj (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- You must base your edits on reliable sources. Do what you can to remain neutral, keeping your opinions out of what you contribute. That said, give credit to your own common sense and experience if it's telling you something may be incorrect. Check the sources that are cited to support the info you are questioning and determine whether they were properly used. If the sources check out okay, look for reliable sources that might come at the issue from other directions and expand the article to include other views, being careful not to give fringe opinions undue weight. I could probably be more helpful if I knew the specifics of what you are considering. Jojalozzo 20:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Questionable source in Smart_grid#Smart_power_generation ?
You stated that "copyedit, remove material about future plants sourced only by press releases. let's wait until a reliable 3rd party source is available, maybe after the plants are built."
Please do elaborate why a press release published in e.g. Reuters does not constitute as a reliable source? A press release is a legally binding document when it concerns stock listed companies, so its pretty much as reliable as they get. Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources does not prohibit using press releases as sources either. (AFD2020 (talk) 07:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC))
- A press release is a primary source which cannot be used to determine notability and even if notability is clear, must be used with care, but, more importantly, press releases are to be avoided because they are inherently promotional. We're not here to promote a particular business, right? Jojalozzo 12:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Notability clause is not an issue here, and to avoid the promotional claim, I selected one written by a reporter. Therefore promotional does not stand. I'm trying to make the life of people who are looking objective information related to the development of smart grid easier, and to be honest there haven't been that many solutions which will be actually taken commercially into use in the near future, so this is quite important in the development of smart grid. As for promoting a particular business, shall I leave out Wärtsilä or Elering or both to make you satisfied? (AFD2020 (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC))
Does an article written by Bloomberg reporters suffice as a valid third party source? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-08/waertsilae-wins-eu129-million-order-for-estonian-power-plant.html (AFD2020 (talk) 07:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC))
- The Bloomberg "article" (2 sentences!) clearly states that the only basis for the information is an email press release from the company. So the newspaper article is actually just reporting that the company issued a press release. Wikipedia should not be on the cutting edge of what's being planned and even what's being built. As I suggested, let's wait until the plants are built and reporters can go and see them and tell us about them in their own words. Jojalozzo 12:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- I can reference reporters which we're present and asked question in the related press conference, but that doesn't help much if they took most of their content from the press release. Nevertheless, I will continue to look for a source which is third party enough for you, but please do help me out here, which reporters do you prefer here? (AFD2020 (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC))
- This one is written by an Estonian reporter (the matter is big in Estonia, so it explains why he wrote more than 2 sentences, will it do? http://www.balticbusinessnews.com/?PublicationId=df120449-877c-42ce-a752-9b7bfef6abf6&ref=rss (AFD2020 (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC))
- Also, e.g. Smart meter discussed future events which are planned "In December 2009 the United Kingdom's Department of Energy and Climate Change announced its intention to have smart meters in all homes by 2020.[13]" with a reference which is not third party, nor is it working. This is bad content, my text is not.(AFD2020 (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC))
- Why is it so important to you that Wikipedia mention this planned project? Do you have a personal interest in the project, the companies or organizations that are involved? These are critical questions that need answers now. As I said above Wikipedia is not here to promote projects, businesses, or anything.
- The balticbusinessnews.com article appears to be a straight copy of the press release. That is not a suitable source for this information.
- Why not wait for the project to be built???
- It is important to me as it is something which is actually done to implement a smart grid, instead of just empty talk of "things that will be eventually". I do work in the power industry, but I do not own either company stock nor am I paid for writing this. I'm also worried that no-one else will write about the matter, as there aren't that many people who follow the industry.
- Where can I find a reporter which does his job instead of copy-pasting nowadays. Is http://news.err.ee/Economy/24e596b8-3b7f-4842-956b-cd5298b3cede better? The contents naturally are roughly the same, but this one doesn't seem to be copy-paste.
- I personally see that Wikipedia should be the source of aggregated up-to-date information, and three years is a darn long time. Doesn't really make sense to me to wait for the perfect smart grid to be ready before anything can be written about it.
- Wikipedia does not have a goal of being up-to-date. It does have some current events aspects but in general we should wait until things gel and experts get a chance to evaluate the status of things before we include them. I refer you to the following guideline articles: Wikipedia:The world will not end tomorrow and Wikipedia:There is no deadline. One relevant quote:
- "We can afford to take our time, to consider matters, to wait ... until its significance is unambiguously established. ... Wikipedia is not Wikinews and has no need to scoop anyone..."
- Right now the smart grid is mostly "empty talk of 'things that will be eventually'". There's no reason to leap on the first thing that looks like a part of it until it actually gets done and experts agree that's it's what it says it is. Jojalozzo 16:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not have a goal of being up-to-date. It does have some current events aspects but in general we should wait until things gel and experts get a chance to evaluate the status of things before we include them. I refer you to the following guideline articles: Wikipedia:The world will not end tomorrow and Wikipedia:There is no deadline. One relevant quote:
OR in Evolutionary Psychology (and Criticism)
I've been thinking about the edits you made to the Criticism of Evolutionary Psychology article, removing lots of content that looked potentially like OR, and rephrasing claims to be directly attributed to specific sources. Overall, I think your edits were very well intentioned, and some useful improvements were made to the article. Still, there's an issue that concerns me. When I read the Evolutionary Psychology article, the claims are not all attributed to specific sources. For the most part, it doesn't read, "Pinker argues this," or "Buss claims that." It simply describes the content of the field. Why, then, is there a different standard being applied to the Criticism of Evolutionary Psychology article? Putting the specific sources into the sentence structure of the text makes it seem as though these are views only held by very specific people. Rhetorically, it marginalizes the views and arguments. I'm not sure this is a bad thing. But if it is the standard, then it should be applied even-handedly to both sides of issues, advocates and critics alike. Why did you focus on the Criticism page but not the Evolutionary Psychology page? My request is fairly simple: that you either apply the same stringent editing standards to both articles, or not edit either. Only applying these standards to one side risks (inadvertently) introducing POV to the collective articles. I would, of course, prefer that you edit both rather than neither. Thank you for considering this request (and for your helpful tip on my talk page).Jj1236 (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Editors in the EP criticism article were/are engaging in the controversy themselves, responding to criticism with their own arguments based on primary sources that counter the criticism when those sources were not explicitly engaged in the controversy. This pro-EP bias is a problem in the main article also but I am choosing my battles. If you are interested in bringing balance there as well, I'd support that. Jojalozzo 12:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- In the discussing the controversy in either article we are presenting the points of view of various participants. We need to make it clear to the reader that the points of view are those of participants and not editors' original research. That means a) indicating either generally or specifically whose POV it is and b) not adding our own arguments. When I have time I will work on the treatment of criticism in the main article as well but I would appreciate any help from you or others in correcting these problems. Jojalozzo 23:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I understand better now what you (and the wikipedia community, more generally) mean by OR; specifically regarding style and citations. In some cases it's impossible to tell without detailed knowledge of a field whether some content is OR, or inadequately attributed. The protocol of inserting a "citation needed" label, and drawing attention to the issue on the talk page, then waiting a bit before deleting suspected OR, seems an effective approach. This gives other good-faith editors some time to track down the original sources when it's not OR. In the mean time, the specific content is qualified to the reader as not yet attributable to a reliable source. (I think you followed this protocol, and I'm just summarizing to show that I'm on the same page, I hope). I'll do my best to keep polishing up both the EP and C-of-EP pages, in line with guidelines that you've helpfully drawn my attention to. Thanks again. Jj1236 (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)