User talk:Marskell/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Sex Pistols

Will have another look today, Sandy 12:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One FA

Good idea. Thanks for letting me know about it. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What next?

Ok, so what do I do now, strike, or leave it alone and ignore? <sitting on my hands ... > Sandy 00:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I suspect it is just a war of attrition, and that some of them (GAers) do just want it "over", which would be a mistake for all of Wiki. It's a GA problem, now threatening to harm Wiki. There's a discussion on plange's page: my advice is to not back down, as any change in inline citations will be to the detriment of Wikipedia. I should shut up now, since I'm not that effective in debates :-) Sandy 00:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

Hey Marskell, sorry about that uh, "incident" in the Anti-Americanism talk page, I left a little apology there for you to read. Scryer_360 03:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One FA

I saw you claimed you couldn't find an image of Barnard's star and thought "that can't be right", but it appears it is. I did manage to find the sky survey image around Barnard's star here but I suspect you've already seen it. Anyway, that distraction aside, I've signed up for a few. Yomanganitalk 11:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

With arrow as requested ;) [1] from [2]. Yomanganitalk 12:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, that was very sloppy - shows the perils of working backwards from an image search. I'll keep looking. Yomanganitalk 12:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cite problems list

When moving stuff down, I think you'd better cut all the subsequent mentions as well on the various sub-lists you've created. Just do a crtl-F when it's up in edit mode. Marskell 16:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I do that (did I miss one?). The thing is, when I created the lists, I didn't add the article that were already in FAR, so a lot of the ones being moved down now aren't on the sub-lists. Thanks for the ctrl-F tip! Sandy 16:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Yep, probably I was the only one who realized I hadn't added current FARs to my original sub-lists :-) I just looked at Sex Pistols, which is hugely improved. Let me know when you consider it ready for a new vote: I'm just about there to Keep. Sandy 16:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star and Barnard's star

First, I'm curious if and when you'll take star back to FAC. Let me know when you do. It's just the sort of core topic that ought to be FA and you've done a lot of work.

I took another look at the star page; compared it to some of the other language versions, and I found a few additions I wanted to make so it feels more complete. I'd like to expand the history section a little more and also include a sub-section on metallicity under the characteristics section. But hopefully soon. Thanks for the interest.

Also, I was wondering if you wanted to look at Barnard's star for which I've started a PR here. I think I can safely summarize a science abstract from a copy edit standpoint, but I need someone to double-check the numbers.

Okay, I'll take a look at the PR. — RJH (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Multi-lingual then? ;). Any help appreciated. Marskell 21:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I know a little french—just enough to get myself in trouble—but usually I just use the google translation links on the foreign-language wikipedia pages. :-) — RJH (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If you need someone who speaks French I can help. I found some pictures of Barnard's star here (pictures format is odd), or here (should be PD) or here but has to ask for permission. Poppypetty 00:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The star article is back up for FAC. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Hi again. I withdrew the FAC because I find some of the objections to be, well, objectionable. I'm not going to wreck the article just to please one objector, but that's usually sufficient to kill a FAC under the current system. I'd rather keep the article in its current form as a GA and work on fixing the few suggested tweaks. Thanks for your feedback. — RJH (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • By "objectionable objections" do you mean that the commentary pointed out legitimate, serious flaws or, conversely, that they were bogus and you'd rather not take the time? If it's the latter, I strongly urge that you relist it. Make your case as to why they are not actionable or why acting upon them would be to the detriment of the article. Marskell 20:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes I took issue with a number of the objections, which I listed on the FAC page in blue font. Several of the objections I thought would be detrimental to the article, and others I thought were inconsequential issues, so I decided to cut my losses and withdraw the FAC. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • But it had barely started! There was a support and an object. Will a few more days or a week hurt? People had engaged it. Marskell 20:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay I added it back in. I guess we'll see what, if anything, comes of it. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I feel from your last comment that I may have badgered you. Sorry. I hope you don't think the FAC is actually harming the article. I think it's a better general purpose read with your recent work. And I wouldn't be so sure it won't pass looking at it now... Marskell 13:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No, no, not at all. My comments were more in regard to the process in general. Thank you for your good feedback. — RJH (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, sorry for the continued dummy questions, but the 139 figured you deduced represents what? True or absolute motion, true or absolute velocity, or space velocity? Or are they synonyms? Should I stop phrasing every thing as a question? Marskell 13:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No they're not dummy questions. :-) Both the proper motion and radial velocity are with respect to the Sun, so I read the 139 km/s as the heliocentric velocity. The space-velocity vectors (UVW components)[3] are relative to the galaxy. — RJH (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I've taken Barnard's star to FAC here. You can see what I've done with the different catalogue numbers. Someone red-linked the ARICNS catalogue. I was thinking of creating it, but thought you might know more about. Congrats on Star BTW. Cheers, Marskell 14:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Marskell. Nice job on the Barnard's star article. I added some comments. — RJH (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sex Pistols

Thanks for your kind words, and good work yourself on copy editing over the last few weeks. I have, somewhere, a specific book - Savage's - that would be very good on the "Influences and cultural legacy" section, but I just can't find it for now...one of those books given on loan but never returned, I'd guess.

That said, I'm not keen on this area of music articles - contextualising isn't particularly encyclopedic, and legacy usually decends into a list of band that have name dropped in early interviews. But anyway, I'll try and incorporate the suggestion made at the FAR today, over the weekend.

BTW, the royal family had to be pushed to comment on Diana's death, not to mind "God Save The Queen"! - Coil00 22:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: "we shall not have it". Mmm, "Off with their heads" seem a more characteristic responce, but would be a tough one to source. Maybe if I try The Suns archive - Coil00 23:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well spotted! Coil00 18:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you could take a look at this version of the lead, and maybe copy edit or scan for POV. I've purposely left this bit for last, as a fan of the band it's hard not to get carried away when writing the lead, and this an attempt to establish their impact, factually, and without too many superalatives. Once this section is resolved, I'll change my vote to keep, and we can move on. Thanks again Marskell - Coil00 19:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your toughtful comments. It will probabally take me a few days to incorporate your suggestions, my schedule for the next few days is a bit hectic. I take what you have said, and will adjust to fit, but if your keen to close this off, the article as it stands sould pass review. Re: "Hope I'm not coming down too hard ", the more brutal, the more beneficial, to be honest.
Not wanting to push my luck, but I 'll be seeking a peer review for Nick Drake in the next month or so, and I hope you don't mind, but I'll probably request your comment during that process. With the expectation of a cold and frank analysis ;) Again - thanks. - Coil00 21:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Arrrrrrgh !! Remember when I said I could handle three FARs at once? Well, I didn't plan on Tuberculosis coming up, so I learned my lesson :-) TimVickers is making a valiant effort to save it, so I feel like I have to help over there. I'll get to Sex Pistols as soon as I can; I don't know the territory well, so I'm going to have to spend a lot of time reviewing all of that back and forth to sort it out. Sandy 17:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to think WT:FARs are more difficult even than actual WP:FAs! The changes made have been so substantial that the article, by the time we're finished, and if patience holds, will effectively have been rewritted, and rewritten under intense critical glare. That said, I agree with most of Punctured's comments, it's just finding the time to fix them. The problem with the sources is my first priority right now, to be fair, i think what happened was I was citing for fragments of sentences, but gave the impression that the source backed up the whole, or in some cases, it seems, the whole paragraph. Maybe sloppy, but in my defense, that's what happens when you take an article from 13 to 61 refs in a few weeks! But no matter, I take the point, will fix it, and well, its been a good learning experience so far.

Re: "influences". It would be great if you could add. I strongly believe its worth mentioning that these bands did form as a "direct response". Its an often repeated fact. To be honest I think its the most important statement about the band the article needs to make, and I don't think Punctured is disputing it per ce, just that it needs to be cited (and it is, just not in the right places!). If you want to reinstate, I can move the refs around.

Punctured makes a valid point about the prose; once the obvoius repair work remaining is fixed, I thing it might be worth asking a couple of good copy editors to lend a hand. We could probably do it ourselves over time, but as you've said before, the review is dragging on a bit now, and needs to be resolved. Anyway, thanks for the support and assumption of good faith today - Coil00 22:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: "direct response", maybe we're at cross wires here - I'm referring to the fact that many of the other first wave punk band formed almost as copyists. Its a fairly safe claim to make.
Could I ask your opinion about this: I'm tempted to ask that the review is parked for a week or two; I read over it again just now, and I can see alot of room for improvement in the copy. It's 99% of the way in terms of content, but with a bit more polish, it could be a lot more engaging. The story is actually quite funny, albeit in a tragic kind of way, and this has yet to be brought fully accross. You've done a lot of great work here, Marskell, but i'm kinda searching for a project anyway and would like to take this on. Though, to be honest, mostly as a dry run for the peer review I mentioned above. As you said you can get too close to an article, and about two weeks ago I starting to ahve dreams about Drake. I need a break from it, and this is a good outlet. I also need a spellchecker, it seems. - Coil00 23:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chomsky

From: Talk:Anti-Americanism#Want_to_introduce_myself_before_editing_this_page

On another note, IMHO, I don't have very high regard for Chomsky, although we share many of the same biases. He is a leftist ideologue whose strong rhetoric is shallow and simplistic. He is what I call a "gateway author" User:RWV#My_pet_graph.

I have also found some of his research flawed. Two debates, including an acknowledgement that Chomsky's reasoning is fallacious, excuse my debate style I have improved dramatically since then....

Signed: RWV 16:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAR Noms

Ok that's fair enough, I don't intend nominating any more anyway for a fortnight. Could we get some sort of consensus and FAR rules/guidelines upon the amount of FAR noms one can do? I only nominated another in consideration that it's been 4 weeks since I nominated A Day in the Life for FAR/C, which means within the coming days it'll be defeatured as nobody has worked on it properly. LuciferMorgan 12:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Your opinions seem fair - that's why I didn't nominate all the Beatles articles at once for FA review and have been nominating one every fortnight. I'm glad now that someone seems to be doing some citation work on the Beatles FAs, namely the Get Back article so hopefully now they'll improve and some may even keep their FA status (which'd be nice). I'm sure one or two of the Project members would like to string me up! LuciferMorgan 12:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bishojo

Good decision, I thought. Tony 13:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple noms

Just a heads up: we have one editor, PopUpPirate (talk • contribs), who was hit with two noms in four days, and another editor, AzaToth (talk • contribs), who made back to back noms. I left a note for AzaToth; you may want to review and/or add to my wording there. We've hit 40 articles in FAR. Sandy 19:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fermi paradox

I was wondering why you reverted the recent changes made to the Fermi Paradox page. Would you care to elaborate?

[edit] Arbitrary new sex pistols thread

Sorry about that, intention was to also use the source further up the text. Also, I did finally get a spellchecker, but the damn thing was defaulting to US English, it seems. The pistols are referred to as 'the group' and 'the band' at different points through the article. I'd prefer to go with just 'the band'. Any toughts? Coil00 21:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I replanted text from the influences to the lead, leaving the influences a little light again. Can you bear with be on this one, I've found bits and pieces that can be added. Thanks - Coil00 00:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It's slightly embarrassing, but I appreciate your watching my back with regard to typos and occasionaly lapses into POV! - Coil00 17:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I think your right about leaving it for the moment, hopefully any remaining issues will be of a type easily corrected.
Anyway thanks again for all your help, guidance & patience over the last few weeks Tim, fingers crossed we can close this off fairly soon. - Coil00 19:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Attribution

Hi Marskell, the proposal is to merge the policies, not to scrap them, so all the important points will stay. I hadn't raised the idea of merging the two until recently, but I've often wondered what the point was in having two pages (and three if you count RS) that said essentially the same thing, and I've seen others express confusion on the same point. Yes, the Foundation has been made aware of the proposal. I don't think we'll need a straw poll; it'll become clear whether there's a consensus for the change or not, and that's going to depend on what kind of page we end up with. It's early days. By all means jump in. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I tentatively raised the idea of attribution v verifiability on the V talk page once, but people were in the middle of fending off a bunch of reverts over some other issue, so I didn't press it.
I do know what you mean about the value of the NOR idea, and you're right that it can be hard to avoid. But I do think it's incapsulated in the sentence: "Material must be attributable to a reliable source." That is, there must be a source somewhere who has said what you are saying, deduced what you are deducing, argued what you are arguing. The NOR page could be kept for the purposes of illustration; or the new policy if it's accepted could be called NOR and not Attribution. I actually like the idea of calling it No original thought, WP:NOT, but that's taken. Because that is the essential point of NOR and V: don't tell us what you think; tell us what other people think. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
What my thinking is at the moment: let's try to come up the kind of page people continually say they want: one page; succinct; the main ideas about V and NOR clearly expressed; a few key examples perhaps but not long lists; and one that facilitates research and writing rather than hindering it (I'm thinking in particular of the popular culture issue here). Then once we have it, we can think about whether to call it Attribution or something else; whether we need to retain other pages or not; or retain them but as some other kind of page (advisory, FAQ about NOR, or whatever). But let's first of all come up with a page that's as clear as we can make it about the essential ideas. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree about the synthesis thing; it's absolutely key. I had an example on the new page, now removed, but I intend to restore it. [4] SlimVirgin (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I've created an NOR section and included the synthesis example. See here. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: star

Lotsa good stuff there, but it does need work. It doesn't really flow; there needs to be more of an introductory feel to it. Technical terms and descriptions are thrown in without explanation. The word "nova" is used several times yet is never really explained. Wolf-Reyet stars, the Aysymptotic giant branch, the triple-alpha process, electron degeneracy, Kelvin-Helmholtz timescale, Hayashi track etc are mentioned without explanation (If you're going to go into the HR diagram in such detail, you should have it on the page, and probably give it its own section). White dwarfs are mentioned several times before the article actually explains what they are. Also, you can't expect a layman to understand that confusing astronomical term "metal" simply because you create a wikilink to it. Someone who sees "metal rich" will naturally conclude that metal means iron or gold. There should be more detail on stellar classifications. The difference between "dwarfs" and "giants" is never really explained, apart from the fact that one is presumably larger than the other. Plus, while I understand this article's reticence to delve into the madness of my world, some mention of the difference between stars and brown dwarfs would be useful. The problem with this article, I think, is that it doesn't know who it's for. Is it a technical, scientific article for those studying astronomy at graduate level, or is it an introduction for the layman? It is, of course, possible to be both, but the introductory, basic material should come first, and the technical, advanced stuff later. Serendipodous 08:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Thanks, and thanks for your comments during the process (though they seemed to fall on deaf ears). Yomanganitalk 23:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

I've been watching, but right now I'm so disgusted that so many Wiki admins are busy fighting over civility problems among themselves, and can't be distracted to take care of basic business (civility, BLP violations, failure to assume good faith) affecting the project and those of us in the trenches trying to write an encyclopedia, that I'm not in a frame of mind to delve in. I imagine in the long run that Wiki gets more revenue from pop culture articles than it worries about losing when BLP violations occur on articles mentioned in the NY Times coverage of Wikipedia. That's not something that any of the admins seem worried about right now, so I guess Wiki is aiming towards being a pop culture repository. Sandy 15:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm done for a few days, [5] maybe I'll be more willing to look at attribution next week, maybe not. Sandy 16:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts over lunch:

  • The pop culture editors want to write something in between a tabloid and a magazine (some of them—not the ones we encounter on FAC/FAR). They want their own standards for referencing. We're supposed to believe a wrestling fan website is a reliable source.
  • The scientists (not all of them, and not even the best of them) want to write textbooks. They want their own standards for referencing: we're supposed to believe it's all in their heads, can't be referenced, and can't be written in encyclopedic tone.
  • The campaign and elections bio people want to write campaign ads and to use opponent articles to attack their opponents. They don't want to have to meet notability or be held to reliable sources, as their purpose is advertisement. They want new standards for notability.
  • And so on.

None of them seem to understand we're writing an encyclopedia, or just what encyclopedic content is. Maybe they don't remember what an encyclopedia is. We have the opportunity to review encyclopedic (hopefully) articles on FAC and FAR, but as the numbers show, they are in the VAST minority relative to the amount of sheer garbage, advertisements, POV-pushing, campaign ads, BLP violations, and tabloid material that is out there.

Meanwhile, most of the admins are too busy fighting with each other over on AN and AN/I to help out the lowly editors who are dealing with all of this in the trenches. We work on a minute fraction of the articles on FAC and FAR, which pales in comparison to the rubbish that is in most articles. And now they want to lower standards ??? Wiki has an apparent identity crisis: it seems that there are too many people who just don't understand what an encyclopedia is, and too few admins willing to do anything about it. Sandy 19:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, I hope you'll join in the discussion on WT:ATT, because this is exactly the kind of thing we need to discuss. We have a bit of split between prescriptivism and descriptivism, and the question is how to strike a balance. Where is the line to be drawn? Do we allow less-than-wonderful sources for certain areas? If so, which ones? Your input would be very helpful. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the invite from both. Tim, I've never encountered an English-speaking person who used the phrase, "low-hanging fruit" (mango bajito in Spanish), and it perfectly sums it up! Made me smile :-) Not good timing, SV: I'm not in the best frame of mind right now to make helpful, productive commentary. What I've learned in the last 2 days is that we don't really have any standards on Wiki: we don't uphold or enforce WP: CIVIL, AGF, NN, or BLP, and we don't take care of those who are out there dealing with BLP violations. So, best to stay away from the "low-hanging fruit", and work on articles where one encounters a higher standard. Tim, I appreciate your concern for burnout: I can do a lot, and at a high pace, all the time. What irks me is feeling like an idiot for following and trying to help enforce rules which apparently don't really apply anyway, unless you have an admin in your pocket watching out for you. Hard work, I can handle, but I follow the rules. I would never think I could be as uncivil as other editors have been to me, and get away with it. I've got accusations of Wiki-stalking parked on my talk page, and apparently that's OK, along with a whole lot more. Oh, well. Next week, Yomangani will save some delightful article like Laika, and I'll feel good about the work again. But there's all too much low-hanging fruit, and I sure don't want to see it get any worse, so I'd better hold off on putting my nose into Attribution for a few days. Sandy 23:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the RfA process, as well as being potentially abusive and traumatising, doesn't do a good job of sorting out who will be good admins. The result is that we now have a large reservoir of admins who played their cards the right way to get through the process, and are quite unsuitable for the task. It's a major problem for WP, and the almost total absence of a system of reviewing adminships (analogous to FAR/C) is a scandal. Institute a system that makes admins accountable, from time to time, for their behaviour, and the quality of admining will rise suddenly. As for the pop culture referencing issue, I'd need to be thoroughly convinced of the benefit of bending the rules for them; without commonalities, WP may as well just be googlable articles. Tony 05:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
You've pegged the source of the problem: now that I've been in the lower-lying trenches, I can see it more clearly, so the foray into the orchard was good for something. Sandy 12:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried to catch up on attribution last night, but it's moved too far, and I'm too confused to dive in. For starters, why are we trying to merge WP:NOR and WP:V? We often need to specifically point out that something is OR/synthesis, even if sourced. It's convenient to point to a specific page discussing that specific problem. I'm not understanding the overall objective of the project, so can't yet comment on the concern about lowering standards for sourcing. Can someone point me to a talk page starting place for the big picture of what we're trying to accomplish? Anything that will encourage stronger sourcing and a return to an encyclopedia is something I want to be involved with: I can't figure out if this is doing that. We need to have a bigger bite to stop the fancruft, pop culture, advertisements, campaign ads and POV-pushing via blog entries and dubious sources (Youtube is the latest), even if admins won't do it. This seems to have already moved into some sort of a consensus phase, and I may be too late to the game. Sandy 13:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I have guests and pending travel, with limited time on my hands, as well as limited internet access approaching. Too bad I lost valuable time in the orchard, but I do hope I learned something there. Can you point me to some specific talk page sections I should focus on? I don't want to barge in like an idiot, but I don't have time to digest the whole thing. Sandy 14:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

I've answered on my talk page in order to keep the discussion together, given that it's a bit complex. Feel free to move the conversation here if you prefer. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnard's Star

I wouldn't have uploaded the file unless NASA told me I could. A few phonecalls, a few minutes on hold, an email and a day later I finally got the information I needed. The answer was a yes. Then, I added the line. Actually, to tell the truth, I couldn't tell which one was Barnard out of the stars. I had to do some checking around, looking at multiple pictures. I really didn't want to be wrong, so I checked five different pictures. I even called my grandfather for help. Alone, I would have just submitted it and hoped someone could guess, but with my grandfather's help, I could make an educated guess. I then took it to MS paint (god damn this computer, it doesn't even have photoshop) and did my best. I am so glad that's over with. -- ¢² Connor K.   13:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I got more images to use. Take a look at my user page.-- ¢² Connor K.   22:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sex Pistols!

You are working on the Sex Pistols! Man, good luck with that, I admire your courage!-- ¢² Connor K.   21:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to keep that in mind. I am not a huge fan, I mean, I like them and all, but I'm definately into Postpunk right now. (PiL is more my style). My sister is the pistols junky (she stol my pistols shirt! Well, she asked my permission, but I couldn't say no to her...)-- ¢² Connor K.   19:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnard's star or (Barnard's Star?)

It was not an ultimatum. There was no time limit. In my opinion the article is close to being a featured article and, believe or not, I was trying to help you. I can cross out my objection at any time. I had pondered whether just to list the problems with the article, but it was quicker to make the changes. One of my articles, I think, is close to 'canonisation' and some reviewers had put a great deal of effort into helping me. I was trying to put something back into the FAC process rather than just being a consumer. I thought some comments that I received were vague, and reasoned that in your case it would be simpler to show you what I think is needed. For example, I hope that you agree that at least the first two sentences read better. I then thought (correctly as it turns out) that you would find an error in how I had interpreted what you had tried to say and decide to reverse it all. I guessed you would be happier for other reviewers to see the version that you had last edited rather than my attempt. I had thought about supporting its candidacy after my changes but felt I then had a conflict of interests. Without the amendments to the language, I have to oppose for the moment, though the improvements that you make do not have to be mine. I am sorry that my motives were misinterpreted. I will have a look in a week or so to see if Barnard's Star is getting closer! Good luck. JMcC 15:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


If you were being really picky, this is what you could look at.

  • 'has likely received' - is this what is called a weasel word?
    • Source says: "star has probably received more observational attention than any other M dwarf." Point taken about weasel words, but if a source is less than absolute then the page needs to be.
  • 'attractive location' - a bit like the Hitchhikers' Guide (The sun was described as being "in the unfashionable western spiral arm".) I think its convenience for astromers would be a better reason. and the fact Barnard's Star is mentioned in the Hitchhiker's Guide makes 'attractive' sound even odder.
    • Changed.
  • 'apparently erroneous' I think we can say now there are no planets of the size that Van Kamp predicted so is 'apparently' needed? Is an erroneous discovery possible anyway? Perhaps it is only an erroneous claim to have discovered planets.
    • Changed.
  • 'extrasolar' seems excessive. 'nearby' would put it more simply. I also wondered about 'rapid, unmanned travel'. 'It has been suggested as one of the nearby stars that could be targeted for exploration by unmanned probes' also seems simpler. 'Unmanned travel' sounds odd to me because travel has human connotations.
    • Changed first. I think "rapid, unmanned travel" is fine; this mimics the source as well.
  • 'Periodic changes' is plural, the verb should agree. I tend to throw in more 'thats' and a good place might be after 'indicate'
    • Indeed.
  • quiescent with little dramatic activity' is tautologous
    • Tweaked.
  • To me as a non-astronomer 'easily noted' is odd. If I have to stand around for a lifetime to see it shift by a quarter of the Moon's diameter, I think 'easy' would be an exaggeration. I guess it easily shows up in blink comparators but the average person would not think it easy.
    • Hm. Easy refers to fact that the full angular diameter of the Moon is large enough to be seen. I dropped it.
  • ARICNS is given ARCINS in reference 1
    • Changed.
  • 'bolumetric' I have already mentioned
    • It says "bolometric or absolute". Now I could have a bracket "(absolute meaning across all wavelengths)" or something, but I'm assuming that absolute alone will suffice for the reader willing to follow the link. There's a tension, obviously, b/w explaining things at length and having too many clunky parentheses.
  • 'solar' is an adjective not a noun. Suggest replacing with 'of the Sun's'.
    • "Solar" --> "solar luminosity".
  • (I wondered if the atmosphere would freeze out as well but the inverse square law would put it as if near Saturn and we know Titan has a methane atmosphere)
    • Mmm...you're going to have explain that one. The critical figure for determining how much energy would reach us is, AFAIK, absolute luminosity at 34/10000. That would put us at the equivalent of 294 AU if the stars were flipped around—out in the Kuiper belt (though that's just back of the envelope from a numbers dummy). This also mimics the source.
  • 'pc' could have a link to parsec and 'ly' to light year
    • Both are linked in the first paragraph.
  • 'along with' - why 'along'?
    • That just "feels" colloquial. Changed anyhow, as less is more.
  • Why just a semi-colon after 'planetary companion'? It makes a very long sentence.
    • A semicolon indicates two sentences.
  • 'planetary suggestion for a Jupiter mass planet' is duplication. Could you have a planetary suggestion for anything else?
    • Check.
  • 'proved to undermine' would be simpler as 'undermined'
    • Changed.
  • Suggest replacing 'utilizing' with the simpler and informative 'also using'. It emphasises that the work was at the same place
    • Changed.
  • 'putative confirmation' is odd. Something is either a confirmation or it is not
    • Hm. If I'm claiming something to be a confirmation then it's a putative confirmation... Changed to "supposed" as more colloquial.
  • 'Van de Kamp planet controversy' is three nouns in nose-to-tail collision
    • I just removed Van de Kamp.
  • '50 years, ie within a human lifetime'? I think 'ie' helps
    • OK
  • 'Jovian orbit'. I know what you mean but it seems to say that 'I know the adjective for Jupiter is Jovian'
    • I think I'll leave this. Yes, the adjective for Jupiter is Jovian—perhaps the reader will learn that for the first time.
  • I prefer not to end sentences with prepositions. 'in which category' would be better though perhaps prissy.
    • This sentence was poor in general; changed.
  • 'space motion' still unexplained. Why would it change radial velocity?
    • This has been difficult, because reading around shows various descriptors: true or absolute motion, true or absolute velocity, space motion or velocity. To answer the question as best as able, the radial velocity (movement directly towards) will change in value as the over-all motion of the other star causes it to change location. Or something like that.
  • It sounds as if 'Absolute parallax' and 'absolute magnitude' hadn't been measured before and 'deduced' sounds more like a hunch
    • "Deduced" --> "refined".
  • 'can not ' would be better as 'could not'. Do you mean types of planet? (Rocky, gas-giant, plutonic?) or do you mean size and orbital distance?
    • I think the present simple is correct but, erk, "cannot" should be one word. "Do you mean size and orbital distance"—I think this should be obvious, as "more simply" implies you're unpacking the preceding sentence.
  • Perhaps 'terrestrial planets are still a possibility but would be difficult to detect' would be better.
    • Changed. Marskell 10:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Use these suggestions as you will. Good luck JMcC 08:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Marskell

Re: Talk:Anti-Americanism#Unsourced_statments

I wrote a short response to your gracious comments. I owe you one.

I still don't know how much I want to work on this article--we will see.

I completly rewrote my paper that I think I sent too you. It is much more scholarly and unbaised. The teacher is demanding that the articles we use be peer reviewed articles. I still have several articles I need to read on the subject. The professor gave me a "B" on my first page, which I think was very charitable.

If I start sounding like an arrogant prick, please let me know. I try really hard not too come off that way, but I am surrounded by arrogant pricks all day long in law school, so it kind of rubs off on me, unfortunatly. RWV 23:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

Hey. Sorry if my replies on Anti-Americanism were terse two days ago. It's just we've been through the wringer so many times on the first sentence. "Prejudice" was chosen as a kind of hard threshold. If someone is truly prejudiced it's hard to argue that the term doesn't fit; "hostility" or "opposition" might be considered legitimate, however. Marskell 10:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No need to apolgize.
I hate it when I spend months, sometimes years on an article: debating, building, comprimising, and finally protecting my work from vandlas, and then some new punk, ignorant of all of my hard work comes along and attempts to radically change everything.
Because of time limitations and established interests in the Anti-American article, I have decided for now to hold off on radically changing anything in the article(Maybe later I will decide to tackle this page). I guess changing the first sentence was a test of sorts.
In addition, wikipedia can't help me on this paper on Anti-Americanismas much as wikipedia has helped me before.
When I had to do a legal paper on Plan Colombia, it was a different kind of paper, I could use any source I wanted to. (Large portions of the final paper can be found here: U.S.-Colombia_relations) I found a wikipedian Colombian, User:Juancarlos2004 who was a major help, and taught me a lot about the country, and who was extremely tolerant of change in his articles.
But in this paper on Anti-Americanism I am limited by not only time, but sources: I can only use peer reviewed articles. In addition, I am only writing 7-10 pages on Anti-Americanism using peer reviewed articles, the rest of the article is my own research. Because I can only use peer reviewed articles, wikipedia isn't very helpful to me in my research paper. This is because most wikipedians don't have access to peer reviewed articles, and so most of the article is written using other sources I can't use.
Anyway, you may disagree, but IMHO the word "prejudice" is not the optimal word to use in the introduction. I attempted to explain why on the talk page. I am sorry if my explanation was vague, hard to understand, or too wordy.
If you are really interested in this subject, I strongly suggest that you read the first 20 pages of this very interesting dissertation:
I also added Talk:Anti-Americanism#Excerpts_of_paper to the talk page, which may explain what I was talking about better....
Johnston explains everything much better than I can. RWV 14:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Award

Posted to User page.

[edit] "Accredited"

I don't know if you read my last post (before just now) at the workshop, but it was based on me completely misunderstanding you. I read yours and JulesH's posts to quickly and I was a bit upset as well. Somehow I did not comprehend that you had actually given a definition! I am sorry that I did not read this more carefully before responding. The current policy reads When a recognized professional expert writing in his or her area of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist or commentator,. I believe that we should drop professional in favor of accredited, not as compromise on my issue, but rather for the sake of clarity. As you can see Journalists are already specified seperately so your concern in that regard is unfounded. I think the discussion at the workshop has really helped clarify the issue, and has also shown the that an explict exception similar to what you originally removed from the proposal is unworkable. That said I do believe there is still room to find some common ground on the issue. I would hate to see you drop out of the discussion, because there are very few people who are willing to discuss your perspective on the issue and yet we are told that it is a widely held objection. On the other hand I believe there are many people, like JulesH, who see the same problem I do and are willing to talk about it. If it would make any difference, I am willing to completely exit the discussion, if you will agree to continue to work on a compromise with someone else. I would hate more than anything for the issue to return the the state where the objectors refuse to reply to suggestions. Anyways I really appreciate the effort you have made to work this out with me up till now, and I am sorry for not reading your last post more carefully.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I do want clarity above all else. I think we should change it to "accredited". If others object, I am willing to listen to alternate suggestions (I do not imagine I have thought of every possibility myself), but we cannot pick a word that only has agreement because each side defines it differently. After clarity, I want a policy which does not needlessly frustrate people. Or maybe that is all I want, since a lack of clarity is very frustrating. After reading your note on my page, I wonder if you really understand my position. I do not think an explicit exception is going to work. I believe the problems with wording such a thing cannot be overcome. But I am optimistic that there is a solution to the frustration currently caused by the lack of acknowledgment that reliable sources exist outside the lines we have drawn. I know we are coming at this from opposite directions. You are looking at how a policy might be abused by people with unreliable sources, and I am looking at it how a people with reliable sources will be guided by the policy to make the right decision. But this is not a problem, it can be good. Because where we can find agreement, it should be quite solid. I worry you are not as optimistic as I am that any common ground is possible. But I truly believe there are several ways to achieve this, and we only need to stumble across one of them.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 01:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAR

Will catch up tonight; have a plane to catch. Sandy (Talk) 10:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can you imagine?

I also left that article for a long time. It's one of those articles that inevitably bog down because of the editors' differing views of the world. I'm glad you think those quotes are out of place. --Lee Hunter 14:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/r/User_talk%7EMarskell_Archive_11_493d.html"