User talk:Apwoolrich
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hi, I noticed you edited the entry on History of science and technology and seem to be someone who knows about the field (at least well enough to know some of its journals). I've been rewriting the article for awhile (I'm about halfway done) because I think the current one is a complete mess and doesn't at all talk about the development of the [i]study[/i] of the history of science. The text as it currently sits (I haven't had time to add to it systematically lately) is at User:Fastfission/HST, if you have any edits/suggestions/comments they would be greatly appreciated! I know the development of the history of science as a field a lot better than I do the development of the history of technology, so I'm afraid I may miss some things that you might be able to give suggestions on. If you get the time and feel the inclination, of course! Thanks! --Fastfission 03:09, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Hi! Sorry this took a day to get back to you on. I think your ideas are good, and I'd be more than happy to add more details of the history of technology into the HST article. I think that it ought to be kept together with history of science in one big article, personally, only because that's how its academically usually packaged, and (as you know) because the line between history of technology and history of science can be so fuzzy. But I'm not wedded to the idea, and if a full-fledged history of technology article were to evolve at some point, that would be excellent as well. In the US, there is a lot of history of technology though it often gets done in STS programs (here I'm thinking of David Mindell at MIT, for example) and there aren't too many programs dedicated *only* to history of technology (Georgia Tech has one, but I don't know of too many others) -- usually history of science and technology are packaged together, again in part, I believe, because the line can be difficult to define especially when doing "externalist" history of science (as a case in point, I'm currently reading Peter Galison's book on Einstein, Poincare, and the coordination of telegraphic time; Galison is firmly known as a historian of science, physics to be precise, but the work covers the entire spectrum: history of science, history of technology, history of philosophy, history of physics, history of mathematics, etc. It's an excellent read, as well). Also, I think the Beckmann article is very good. I think there is a serious lack of HST topics on Wikipedia, and agree that the rest of the web is full of mostly twice-repeated junk on these topics, but that's what makes it a fun effort, yes? --Fastfission 16:27, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. Biographical dictionaries being one of my major interests, I'm impressed by your CV. Deb 14:27, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Industrial Revolution
Good to see that someone else thinks that Industrial Revolution is a yawning chasm in Wikipedia. I started trying to work on the entry itself, but found that there was just no supporting material already out there that I could stitch together: I've now been sidetracked into remedying that first. I've created Category:Industrial Revolution into which I'm loading all the topics to be worked on. Please help! I'm also creating pretty much the same list on User talk:Noisy (which you can add to as well, if you feel the need ;-) ). That list will also contain peripheral topics.
I notice that you mentioned conflicts over historical facts, somewhere. In the little bit of research on the web that I've done, I am starting to see that Arkwright and Hargreaves get trumpeted as having done things that they didn't, purely because they're more well known. I'll be relying on you to steer me clear of these faux pas. Noisy 14:42, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hi Tony, discussions on the village pump are removed at least every few days. If you think the issue needs to be discussed further (and I think it would be interesting if it was), please create a page about it on Meta so it does not disappear so quickly. Since most of that discussion was focused on one user, I didn't think it would be appropriate to copy that anywhere. If a discussion is started, it ought to focus on the genera issues rather than specific cases in my opinion. Angela. 13:31, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
Hi Tony, if you mean your edits to m:Talk:Draft privacy policy, those are showing up normally for me. I expect you are seeing a cached version. Try logging in, or reloading the page and you should see the current version. The day at the BBC was primarily for us to talk to BBC staff. There's a report on it at m:Wikipedian meetings in Europe/BBC, August 2004. We were interviewed for an hour, but this wasn't filmed. An article based on this is on the BBC website. Angela. 11:50, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Happy Birthday!
Happy birthday, Tony! (and only a few days late!) Best wishes. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 03:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Great articles
I assume you know how much wikipedia needs what you write, rather than one more article about a minor cartoon character. Some of us notice. And happy birthday too. alteripse 12:15, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Simon Goodrich
I knew I was taking a chance picking on the one statement. :-) I don't personally doubt that what you wrote is correct, but in the article it stood out as something a future less-knowledgeable editor might delete as "POV". Dunno if it's happened to you, I've been hit with it a number of times, one gets into an argument and you have to haul out your sources anyway. So published source citing is partly a defensive/preemptive measure to discourage bad edits. On the plus side, it also gives you the tools you need to stop the nutjobs from adding pet theories about Goodrich being in the Illuminati or whatever. Stan 18:55, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Early Britannica
Hi Tony - if you ever need anything looking up in old encylopedia - I have a facsimile edition of the 3 volume 1771 edition. Kind regards Brookie\talk
[edit] Second Industrial Revolution
Whatever you think needs to be done works for me, I defer to your expertise! Mostly I just thought it could've been written a little better, generally cleaned up. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:21, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Looks good to me -- much better job than I could've done! · Katefan0(scribble) 19:40, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Looks much better. But I am questioning the term, or its importance. I have left a note on the talk page for this article. I would suggest we talk about which historians have used the term "Second Industrial Revolution" because it doesn't seem to have such general currency, and the dates would be different in many places in the world where there was industrialization. --Metzenberg 05:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your user page
I imagine it's a bug. I added blank content to the end of the page; that seems to fix it. r3m0t talk 15:39, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Standardized test
I don't think it's a copyvio. The page has hardly changed since John FitzGerald's first edits, and he's not a user I would suspect of adding copyvios. The odd characters were introduced by an anon in this edit, probably due to problems with saving emdashes. The main problem with the article is the complete lack of sources, particularly for the criticisms section. A "use of standardised tests" section is missing, but I don't have any of my work or books about this topic with me since I'm now in Germany, so I can't easily fix this right now. Angela. 10:50, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Edit war in the making
There's a new "Mediation Cabal" which might be able to help with the issue. Angela. 12:02, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Also, see Talk:Nathaniel Eaton and Talk:Copyright for other possible problems with the same user. Angela. 16:27, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] History/History of Science articles on Wikipedia?
Hello,
I’m a historian working at the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University (http://chnm.gmu.edu/) and as part of our project on the History of Science, Technology, and Industry we are very interested in digital historical works, including people writing history on Wikipedia. We’d like to talk to people about their experiences working on articles in Wikipedia, in connection with a larger project on the history of the free and open source software movement. Would you be willing to talk with us about your involvement, either by phone, a/v chat, IM, or email? This could be as lengthy or brief a conversation as you wish.
Thanks for your consideration.
Joan Fragaszy
jfragasz at gmu dot edu
[edit] R B Prosser
I have just created a proper article on the "History of patent law". The early history of UK patent law could probably fit in this article. If you wish to improve the article, that would be excellent. I will try to gather what I know as well (and I will (proof-)read of course what you have written). Feel free to add sections to the article, this often helps to make things clearer. The section "history of patent law" in patent should be summarized now I think. Cheers. --Edcolins 20:58, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Village Pump
==Indulgence==
Thanks for your Firefox advice on Village Pump; even though I wasn't the one to ask the original question, I definately got some good ideas. I went to check for Firefox extensions and I found the greatest thing ever: an extension called OCD that automatically refreshes your browser window for you! Now I don't have to constantly whack the reload button on my watchlist. And it's all thanks to you! I hereby award you this plenary indulgence! Essjay · Talk 10:41, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
- You're welcome! I always try to show my appreciation; I use the indulgence because 1) it's so very Catholic, and 2) nobody else uses it. I figure, who knows when I may do something stupid, I'd better build up support beforehand!
- After you mentioned extensions, I went and downloaded a bunch of them (probably more than I needed) and OCD was one I found. The page for OCD is here. I hope you enjoy it as much as I am! -- Essjay · Talk 02:54, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Industrial Revolution
You may or may not have noticed that Industrial Revolution has come under the spotlight of a group of article improvers. My weekday access is very limited at the moment, so can I ask you to keep your eyes open for any bloopers. (My additions aren't exempt of course, because I'm very much the amateur in this field.) Now might be a good time to consider separating the article into two—one for the British Industrial Revolution, and another for 'industrial revolution' as a generic term. Cheers, Noisy | Talk 20:21, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC) (Also posted to User talk:AlainV.)
[edit] History Articles
Hey! Thanks for your note on my talk page; I started using that template because I always seem to be the second person to welcome people, and all the other templates look alike. As for history articles, I don't think I have; my area of expertise is Catholic doctrine & law, and it really hasn't led to much in the way of history. However, if you'd like to have the researcher email me, I'd be happy to discuss it. -- Essjay · Talk 10:35, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
- After seeing AlainV's note below, I feel I should clarify my comment: If you want to have them contact me through the "email this user" link, I'd be happy to talk with them. -- Essjay · Talk
[edit] Industrial Espionage during the Industrial Revolution
I read on your user page you are knowledgeable in this area? Could you write a section on it in Industrial Revolution, please?--Fenice 17:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] History articles researcher
Give me his/her contact email if he/she wants to ask questions. I will get in touch. I don't want to post my email on Wikipedia. --AlainV 04:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Category:UK Wikipedians
Hi, just to let you know that the list of UK participants at the UK notice board was getting rather long, so I have replaced it with the above category which I have added to your user page. -- Francs2000 | Talk 
30 June 2005 18:42 (UTC)
- No problem (re the historian) however please bear in mind that I'm going on holiday to Greece next week...! -- Francs2000 | Talk 1 July 2005 07:28 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Thanks for voting in my RfA; I promise I'll wield my sacred mop with care. If you ever need me for anything, you know where to find me. Thanks again! -- Essjay · Talk 15:33, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Protestant Church of Wikipedia
You know you wanna join on the talk page ;-) Haha, Redwolf24 14:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Dictionary of National Biography
Hi Tony. Thanks for your work on Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles - I echo what's said above about how much more valuable your contributions are rather than another List of yoghurt brands mentioned in the Simpsons (really hoping that's a red link!) You mention on Talk:Dictionary of National Biography that you have a copy of the DNB on CD. Is there any way of generating a contents list from it? I feel that it would be a really valuable addition to the missing articles Wikiproject. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:12, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Industrial Revolution
Just in case you missed it, you might want to look at a chunk of text that has been added three times (and removed twice) to the Industrial Revolution article. It is presently in the Causes section, and begins "From about 1100, the population of Europe rose, which is because there was recovery from the disorder in the early medieval times..." and runs to the end of the section.
It looks to me suspiciously like a school paper, stuffed, without a lot of thought, into the article. It could, I suppose, be salvaged, but this is really not my field. I thought perhaps you might see fit to clean it up, or just delete it again?
TIA, Mwanner 21:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Hello
Thanks for the welcome and the note. I'd very much like to see the searchable full text of the early editions of the Britannica online, ideally with the illustrations. I just don't know that I'll be doing it manually anytime soon ... ! I suppose I'm hoping for someone to tweak optical character recognition to better handle specific typefaces, alphabets, etc. used in these old volumes and re-scan them to a far higher degree of accuracy. I wonder what Google is doing with their new project, they have the money and talent for this, and if they will do the EB? flux.books 14:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Hi Tony: Thanks for the vote of confidence. I think I would be better at copyediting than what the Wikisource project is doing, namely becuase, I don't have a scanner and I also don't have a copy of EB11 at home. I do have access to the handy edition at work. The type is small but manageable to read. I would be happy to help in other ways (see copyediting above). Let me know how you want to procede. Best regards, FeanorStar7 18:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 1911 EB
I'd love to help with the 1911EB project. I've moved hundreds (it seems!) from the online OCR version to Wikipedia. However, I don't have a copy of the original. I could fix some obvious things, but I'd not be able to make it final without a copy or facsimile, because, as you saw with the "Viel-Castel" thing, some stuff is so tricky to identify. But yes, I love doing this kind of editing. --DanielCD 20:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Chambers
Hi there ... working on Ephraim Chambers has been on my list for a while, so I'm glad I was able to improve it. I wrote a paper about the Cyclopaedia a while ago and was surprised to find how little literature there is out there on either the Cyclopaedia or Chambers -- very little is known about him and not that many people have even heard of him. I'll check the British Biographical Index though, thanks. Fixing up the Cyclopaedia article is my next task... Brassratgirl 04:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Hello
Category:Wikipedians born in the 1930s is up for deletion. I believe on the "by age" metawiki it says you are from the 1930s so I thought I'd mention this to you to get a sense of what, if anything, your view on it would be.--T. Anthony 06:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Wikisource
Tony, thanks for the invite to join your efforts on Wikisource. I've just created an account there (as you already know ;-) ), but I wouldn't rely on too much activity from me. My editing lately has been pretty much restricted to maintenance work here, and I'm afraid that I've let Wikipolitics suck me in, which is pretty depressing. I'll try and rekindle some enthusiasm to make some positive contributions soon.
I have two tasks sitting in the back of my mind, that you might have the answer to, or can point me in the right direction. One is to track down the birthplace of Charles Babbage (although even his biographers seem uncertain, from the comments I've seen so far). The second (and perhaps something which has a more definite answer) is to find out what is the difference between a tilt hammer and a trip hammer. I did some hunting a while back, and there does seem to be a difference because some foundries are documented as having both, but I couldn't discern a clear definition. In my mind, it started to seem that a trip hammer was in constant operation, whereas a tilt hammer was 'on demand'. Any interest?
Finally, an apology. You left a message on my talk page some time ago regarding looking at the Industrial Revolution article after some changes that you made, and I failed to respond. I treat the internet in quite a different way than I treat interactions in real life, so I'm sure I come over as quite rude on occasion. Hope you didn't take offence. Cheers, Noisy | Talk 14:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] HisPhis
I don't know if you've come across the Wikipedia:WikiProject_History_of_Science yet, but the project would clearly benefit from your involvement. Take a look? Cheers, JackyR 14:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Trip Hammers
Just wandering around, I saw this: [1]... would you consider that text for Hammer mill, perhaps sourced? That article really needs something! (I found out how barren it was when working on Redridge Steel Dam which fed a stamp mill... another name for a hammermill, I think but the hammers are used for ore extraction rather than metal forming.) ++Lar: t/c 15:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Essay & Beatrice Warde
Thank you for the kind words about the essay on my userpage; it's gratifying to know that others like what I wrote. I was unaware of the Printing Office text -- thank you so much for pointing it out to me! — Catherine\talk 22:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for the lovely article on Beatrice and her contemporaries.
- I have taken your challenge to heart. The tone ended up being quite different, but please tell me, what do you think of this?
One gateway to the wide garden
of knowledge, where lies
The deep rock of our past,
in which we must delve
the well of our future,
The clear water we must leave untainted
for those who come after us,
The fertile earth, in which
truth may grow in bright places,
tended by many hands,
And the broad fall of sunshine,
warming our first steps toward knowing
how much we do not know.
inspired by This is a printing office,
by Beatrice Warde
-
- I'm so glad you liked it! Share it with others, if you like. :)
-
- I have added the same formatting to the text on the Beatrice Warde page -- please let me know if it displays all right on your end. (I know Internet Explorer displays it in an ugly sans-serif font instead of that lovely Perpetua; I'm looking for an answer to that.) I'll be happy to implement any changes you might suggest.
I am glad that my essay at an essay led to an improvement for Wikipedia; Beatrice and her contemporaries were definitely deserving of coverage! The article is really looking good now.
As for John Taylor, I just set out to write an article for John Taylor of Duran Duran, on my second day here. (I got hooked on Wikipedia because I know a lot about Duran and the article here was pretty skimpy then.) I knew there was a jazz musician, whose discography sometimes got mixed up with Duran's Taylor on various sites, so I looked around the help pages, learned the word "disambiguation", and created a page with two names on it. When some other people added names to the list, it occurred to me to do a thorough search of Wikipedia, and I found many more JTs that I added to the disambiguation page. Many of their articles were substandard, even by 2003 WP standards, so I began doing research improving them. In doing research in various sources, I found even more John Taylors who ought to have articles.
So trying to improve this one little corner of Wikipedia, I have now learned about 17th century poets and the Thames watermen's guild, pseudoscience and the pyramids, bravery under fire, underappreciated musicians, important scholars, many politicians and preachers, The Mormon Church, early baseball history, The Grauniad, pork byproduct, Velocette motorcycles, and murder, not to mention a zillion different things about how Wikipedia works. So, in short, John Taylor has been very good to me!
But please, by all means, add another to the list..... :) — Catherine\talk 20:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
