User talk:Ahnoneemoos: Difference between revisions

This user doesn't use the View history nor the Watchlist feature on Wikipedia and may not be aware of what's going on. If you need to inquire him please leave a message on this talk page, otherwise he won't even notice.

Archives

2009: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2010: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Hello, Ahnoneemoos. You have new messages at Talk:Toronto Light Opera Association.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne Delong (talk • contribs) 01:49, 4 January 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The article is intended to inform in the same sort of way as the Brooks England article on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_England .The references are all checkable, I only have a tablet pc and no subcription to anything but was able to get this information. Middle More (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to answer your last question, except to say that as with the millions of companies that exist or existed in the world they produced a product which people wanted to buy, enough to keep them in business for well over a century from when they were Richard Middlemore until they were Middlemores. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middle More (talk • contribs) 14:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the additional info to the lead that you mentioned and have resubmitted the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middle More (talk • contribs) 20:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for accepting the article, I really appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middle More (talk • contribs) 01:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did some work on the references, adding details of what each one refers to for those that had no details. Can any of the Issues template now be removed? If you added the template can you tell me which references you think may not be reliable? Thanks. Middle More (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been doing a bit of work on adding links to the references. Middle More (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Middle More (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have now added info box Middle More (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this would be an advantagous thing to do, after hours researching the info and references from a starting point of knowing nothing apart from the fact they once existed. I don't thing anyone could appreciate the article as much without doing this much research. Middle More (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for all your help. Middle More (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ahnoneemoos, you are correct that Wikipedia has a guideline telling us to be bold. While not a guideline, we also have the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. Although it is not a guideline, adherence to this cycle has become common practice on Wikipedia. The best way to take care of a discussion like the one at List of people who have been called a polymath is to make your edit, and when your edit is disputed, to discuss on the talk page with the previous version of the article live. Ryan Vesey 19:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say that I found your user page amusing. I've been trying to figure out what to say on mine and I may steal a few concepts.

On Soto: I'm new to Wikipedia and find the rules confusing. It's amazing to me how much overlap there is between the various rules and policies. I wonder if there has been any attempt to quantify that? Coretheapple (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you need help with or clarified? I'm very familiar with our policies so I can help you on that. If you have more technical questions or need a broader set of opinions you can always ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE! :]

The problem with our policies is that they were created by the community itself rather than by a legal professional. That leaves us with many policies that are subject to interpretation. For example, in Soto's case, what does it constitute to have a "large role"? How do we quantify what a "large role" is? That's when disputes rise. For some people having a "large role" might mean: "being the perpetrator" while for others (like myself) would look at it within the context of the event itself. But once again, since it's subject to interpretation you will have differing opinions and interpretations.

If you find the rules confusing, just remember that you should not take Wikipedia so seriously since you don't get paid to do so. ;) If at any moment you need help with them just ask on the WP:TEAHOUSE like I said above.

In this particular case, what exactly do you need help with or clarified?

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks. First I'm hearing about "teahouse," I think I may wander by. That's just a general observation. In the case of Soto, and previously in the main article (which I was involved in from day one), I found that policies had a way of overlapping and clashing. There's a lot of wiggle room.

On Soto, I found myself torn between those who argued that she was a Victim, per WP:VICTIM, and hence not deserving of an article, and those who felt that she stood out as a heroine and therefore should get one. On balance I leaned toward the latter point of view. As in medicine, I think that "do no harm" should be the general guideline when there is a conflict. What causes the least harm? I suggest that having an article on Soto is that path, and that we should wait and revisit the subject later. On the other hand, if the article in some way disparaged her, if it had that general tone, my feeling would be to redirect as a default position. Does that make sense?

More generally, I think it would be interesting if someone had the time, to chart out the policies and come up with a flow chart on how they conflict. But I don't have the time and as you point out, I'm just a part time volunteer! Coretheapple (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well the thing is that Soto is one of those difficult cases because the policy, rather than the article in question, is what is vague and subject to interpretation. Wether she was a heroine or not is irrelevant to the case.

We have an important policy called WP:NOTPAPER which states that Wikipedia is not limited by what it can host, as long as hosting such thing does not violate the law or causes Wikipedia of being at risk of libel.

We also have two other policies: WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFIABILITY. In Soto's case we have to establish wether she is notable and wether the article someone created about her is verifiable. Verifiability is easy since you only need to provide reliable sources. The problem is WP:NOTABILITY because, once again, the policies use terms that are vague and broad rather than specific.

Now, regarding what causes harm. That's another issue. If you look at it from within Wikipedia, sure, not creating the article would be the most harmless route, for Wikipedians. But we don't write articles for Wikipedians; we write articles for the people that donate to Wikipedia since, without them, Wikipedia wouldn't exist. If you look at it from the perspective of the general public, then creating an article on her makes the most sense. You see, Soto's article has been visited considerably by the general public (see [1] it had 8,283 visits on Dec 21 and about 28,000 visits in total). That's why we create articles, for people that are looking for information since Wikipedia is a non-profit organization that depends on THEIR donations. If they find what they are looking for they are more likely to donate to Wikipedia. If they don't, they go somewhere else with their money. For example, Soto's article is right now the top link on a search on Google for the parameters: Victoria Soto. All this tells you something: people EXPECT Wikipedia to have an article on her. So our job is simply to create an encyclopedic article on her with reliable sources—wether we like it or not.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, those are good points. The complexity of Wikipedia can sometimes be overwhelming. That's why, for a new editor like me, I sometimes have difficulty finding a role that suits me. Coretheapple (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ahnoneemoos:

I want to thank you for your help over the last week or two. You really got things stirred up! The Toronto Light Opera Association page certainly developed in a hurry, and by your example I now know how to get others interested should I start in on another topic. Again, thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome Anne. Thanks to you and your contributions! As we both go on our separate ways now I would like you to read about another project at Wikipedia called WP:ADOPT. It's similar to the WP:TEAHOUSE (of which you are familiar already) except that you will have a mentor on a one-to-one basis. I'm not a member of that project, so I can't adopt you, but I tend to help new editors coming from WP:AFC. If this interests you just add the code:

{{subst:dated adoptme}}

to your user page and someone will contact you and serve as your mentor. I highly recommend it.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You recently reviewed the article I created on Almon Harris Thompson. I think I've corrected all of the errors that you identified. I included summaries in my edits to detail the changes.

I wanted to know how I go about getting the issues block removed from the top of the page. If there are additional issues I need to address please let me know what needs to be done.

Thanks! Eduscapes (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove them yourself by removing the code at the very top of the page. In this case, you need to remove the following:

{{multiple issues|
{{cite check|date=January 2013}}
{{format footnotes|date=January 2013}}
{{citation style|date=January 2013}}
}}

Then just save the page and it will be gone.

However, I noticed that you still need to fix some issues. For example, not all references state who the publisher of said reference is nor the date you accessed the URL to the reference. Others still display a bare URL. Same thing happens with the Further Reading section. Make sure that you read WP:REFB, WP:CITE, and WP:CITEQR.

They are what we call "cleanup templates" (see Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup) and they can be added or removed by anyone, including yourself. Ask these questions at the WP:TEAHOUSE from now on by the way, that's what they are for! :]

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I appreciate your assistance and have made the corrections. I'll use the WP:TEAHOUSE from now on. Eduscapes (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'll see what I can do. Curiously, despite her location, her website notes that she teaches online classes for a branch campus of my university! I'll probably put her in contact with the campus ambassador here. Nyttend (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, but your request doesn't make much sense for me. I live almost 3000 km from Utah and almost 600 km from Bloomington. WVhybrid (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? This was related to User:Eduscapes, about whom Ahnoneemoos spoke to me; she lives in Utah and teaches classes for Indiana University. Nyttend (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the confusion. I teach in the School of Library and Information Science at Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis. However I teach entirely online, so I live in the mountains of southern Utah rather than in Indianapolis or Bloomington. Eduscapes (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take it upon you to advise new editors unilaterally to ignore other editors comments made in good faith as well as your own. More specifically, your take on COI editing as exposed there is not uncontroversial and you should better be aware of it and secondly I specifically advised DJDonkey to not revert themselves AFC reviews of their articles, so telling them twice to igenore that isn't helpful. Moreover, retention of editors working is as much a problem as accommodating new ones and whist we admittedly didn't start of very coherently here you now just added to the mess. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahnoneemoos, I removed the section of "Current members" per WP:NOTDIR, as we are not a directory of members. I know we have had current discussions, however I wanted to thank you for restarting the page in a neutral and encyclopedic manor. I appreciate all you do at AFC and we both want the same thing for Wikipedia and that's neutrality. I think that's a common ground we can work collaboratively together on. I and must see alot good and bad. Please be aware that this organization is actively attempting to edit their own topic. Please don't encourage that and keep an eye out for new WP:SPA accounts editing that page as they have a history of WP:SOCKING. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, brah. WP:AGF on my part and I will do the same for ya. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at my first attempt to create a list page. This was a suggestion given to me during a long debate last year over my category Women in Kentucky History... all my students' biographical entries were removed from the category and we continue to build out subcategies by theme instead... However, the idea of seeing the bios all in one place (and continuing to create more each semester) is - I hope - being addressed by this index article. Randolph.hollingsworth (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about this for title? Kentucky Women in Civil Rights Era Randolph.hollingsworth (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Randolph, can you take this matter to WP:TEAHOUSE, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History, or meta:WikiWomen's Collaborative? I'm merely a reviewer, not an advisor. An index is definitely justified per Index of women scientists articles. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ahnoneemooss First let me first… say that this 80 year older appreciates the work that all of you editors are doing…in behalf of wikipedia…..I have often given some modest contributions as a way of thanks Though it was at first disappointing that my “compliant bonding “ article was declined….I decided redo the article is some version that you have suggested…when I get to that point I will probably resubmit the article…for you next comments With regards to your question about copyright….all of the figures and photos are my personnel collection that I have prepared and used about 40 to 50 years ago…..in various presentations….though the subject is part of the history of science it is still very relevant today….since these silicon integrated circuit “Chips”…are still the brains of the computers that most of us are using today…and therefore there would be interest in how they are reliably packaged in the various computer devices that are used today Finally I notice that you put my figures at the bottom of the article….can I do it either way or some modification of the way I had it and the way you put it at the bottom…(gallery wise) .. Take care …yield3 Yield3 (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for your helpful advice on my page entry for chris hackley bio. I've resubmitted it for review after re-doing the links using the citation template- still not quite sure if I've done it correctly. Best wishes Vic329 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vic329 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		Project Editor Retention This editor was willing to lend a helping hand!
		For your template and banner work. Amadscientist (talk) 10:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for publishing The Mind of a Chef !-96.237.4.73 (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]