User talk:ExplorerCDT

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WELCOME!
Hello, and welcome to my talk page. I will be glad to discuss most anything with you. Please be advised, I hate and often do not abide by WP:CIVIL as I believe it's a policy used as a cop-out, often by hypocrites who are equally uncivil, when their arguments are proven to be illogical or untenable. That being said, also be advised that I am eccentric, opinionated, and often bite! Don't say you haven't been warned!

Click here to start a new discussion.


Archive

Archives
* FEB2005-JUL2006
* AUG2006-JAN2007
* FEB2007-


ExplorerCDT is busy in real life and doesn't respond swiftly to queries.
This user is currently on editor review. You may comment about his or her edits at Wikipedia:Editor review/ExplorerCDT


I will try to respond to you here on my talk page in order to keep continuity in the conversation and on your talk page. Likely only the latter if I'm pressed for time or just being my usual lazy self. —ExplorerCDT 00:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

Rutgers

Beats me. The formal name is as good as the informal name, but I suspect many people just call it "Rutgers". — Rickyrab | Talk 02:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Same sex marriage and mailing list.

Hey, would you mind taking another look at Same-sex marriage in Spain? I think Raystorm has addressed your concerns now. Also, would you mind adding me to the Wikipedia Club of New York mailing list? I'm dev920 at gmail dot com. I'm very interested in seeing how you go about it, it seems like a great idea! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Explorer - I've been through Same-sex marriage in Spain and the corresponding article in the Spanish wiki - I'm mostly satisfied now, awaiting Opabinia's comprehensive concerns - you might want to have another look now. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Same-sex marriage in Spain. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look later on this evening. —ExplorerCDT 22:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

References to College football

Thanks for adding the needed references to College football. You may want to look at WP:CITE to better help you add references in a better fashion. It's not always needed to "name" the reference unless you plan to use it more than once in the same article. Again, thanks for the added reference. --MECU≈talk 20:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I just quickly cut and paste the references from Athletics at Rutgers University, without taking any time or care in editing—hence why the "name" parameter was in the <ref> tag. —ExplorerCDT 20:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

OU article up for FA

First of all, let me thank you for your tremendous help with the University of Oklahoma article. This last PR (its third) was by far the most helpful. I believe I addressed all the issues in the PR and have nominated the article for FA. Please let me know if there are any further issues that needs to be addressed or if you feel the article is now up to FA standard. I look forward to your comments. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/University of Oklahoma.↔NMajdan•talk 19:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Dundee United F.C.

Thanks for the comments re Dundee United F.C. potentially becoming a featured article - I've tried to implement the changes suggested by others and your feedback is extremely helpful. Fedgin | Talk 09:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikilinking in references

Hi, I was following the discussion here and notice you object to wikilinking in references. This is something I do a lot, because I've seen it done a lot. Is there somewhere (WP:MOS?) that says not to wikilink in references? Thanks, Garrie 05:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Port wine

I appreciate your note. However, if you examine my changes you will see that I only changed the formatting, collapsing many single-sentence paragraphs into larger ones. I did not add any content (I deleted a few completely unsourced bits). I understand the article is unsourced, but I didn't add to it. Cheers, Semifreddo 22:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Jogaila

Thanks for your suggestions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jogaila. I've changed all the pictures, etc. to standard thumbs. I put in a biography heading and some more headings, but someone now objects to that, so I would be interested in further input from you, if you have the time. I think I might well have overdone it on the headings now; but it really is such an easy thing for me or anyone else to change, that I'm sure objections on those grounds can be met readily. Cheers.qp10qp 13:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, if you do visit that area, could you also possibly check whether your objections have yet been met at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jack Sheppard. I took a week off work to respond to comments at the Jogaila FAC, but really I haven't been given much to do, and so I got myself involved in this neighbouring candidate instead. I've actually now read two sources (Defoe's History and Linebaugh's The London Hanged) and parts of others, and together with User:ALoan have made changes to the article that increase the quoting and referencing of (many) more sources. The objections on those grounds came mainly from MLilburne and yourself, so I'd be interested to hear your present views of the sourcing. Sorry to bother you again.qp10qp 13:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sussex County, New Jersey source

Your forthcoming book on Sussex and Warren place names does seem most intriguing, and I would be interested in seeing a copy. But given your status as a stickler for Wikipedia policy, I am sure that you might see why the source would be inappropriate, as indicated in an earlier removal, which cited the restriction on unpublished works. Furthermore, as you are the author of the material in question, published or not, it would be seem to meet the exact definition -- and be a rather flagrant violation -- of WP:No Original Research. If you have access to the specific sources you used, you can certainly reference those independent, reliable sources to support the items in the article. Other than that, there would seem to be no choice but to remove the reference to your own research as a source. Alansohn 04:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  • You might want to take another look at that in consideration of WP:COI, WP:NPOV and WP:RS, regarding the use of "secondary sources" and "citing oneself." When those discussions are taken into account (the use of one policy needs to be considered in how it coincides or contrasts with other relevant)...your concerns are hardly justified under OR guidelines. —ExplorerCDT 19:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I hadn't explicitly listed WP:COI and WP:NPOV, but I must agree that your use of a reference to a text you authored would be in violation of those policies as well as the originally specified concerns re WP:No Original Research. I cannot address WP:RS concerns, as I have no access to the as yet unpublished work. I will remove the reference to avoid any further violation of Wikipedia policy. Alansohn 20:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Advance copies of the book are available before its release.' That is added to the <ref> just in case someone like Alansohn would like a copy to review it before passing judgment on whether it complies with WP:RS. Has he asked? No. He just assumes. —ExplorerCDT 06:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I've already asked for a copy of this alleged book, which might allow me to make a judgment as to whether or not it has any merit. It was the first statement I made in discussing the inappropriateness of the use of the unpublished original research as a source. You not only have problems following basic rules, you don't even read your own talk page. To help you through your problem I have highlighted the relevant portions of the conversation. Remember what they say about people who assume... Alansohn 12:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Saying you're "interested in seeing a copy" and asking for one are two different things. I often ignore such instances of beating around the bush. In the meantime, stop removing the reference until you get a third opinion...because your bias against me (as evident in disputes over other articles, i.e. Joyce Kilmer) raises considerable suspicion. I'll provide Choess and Ruhrfisch free copies, but because of your conduct with me previously—and I hope you take it personally—you don't get one without paying retail plus shipping. —ExplorerCDT 10:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I assume ExplorerCDT's request for a Third Opinion will be used and think that is a good idea to resolve this question. If so, and if the ref has to be changed or even removed for whatever reason(s) as a result, please be aware that the book "On Crossroads and Signposts: An Etymology of Place Names in Sussex and Warren Counties, New Jersey" is also cited in the following articles: Paulins Kill, Pequest River, and Stillwater Presbyterian Church (Stillwater, New Jersey) (although it is not in Warren County, New Jersey that I can see). I also wonder if there is any other source for the book that can be given for confirmation - i.e. the publisher's web page or phone number or email - to address some of the Wikipedia:Reliable sources concerns? Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 16:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Ruhrfisch, e-mail me your contact information and I'll have someone contact you/send you a copy. —ExplorerCDT 10:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I live in New York, so if you'd like to make arrangements to hand off a copy, I can probably give an independent assessment and return it in fairly short order. Choess 19:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll be able to have a copy sent out towards the end of the week...funeral and other things in between that's been consuming my time right this moment. Just e-mail me a snail-mail address. —ExplorerCDT 10:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. Packages can be troublesome for me. Sounds like you're busy right now, but it would actually be a bit easier for me to meet at Grand Central or someplace convenient and save the postage. Is there a New York meetup in the near future? I'm sorry to hear of your loss, and I hope things are going OK for you. Choess 07:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Copied from User:Alansohn's talk page

  • I don't see that there's an inherent WP:NOR conflict. "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, then s/he may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest." (my emph.) So the question really hinges on the classification of the book under WP:RS. Choess 05:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Stop removing the reference until you get a third opinion. Your bias against me (best seen in Joyce Kilmer) raises considerable suspicion. If you want a copy, you'll have to pay for it. I'll gladly provide one free to Choess and Ruhrfisch and other qualified requesters, but you're not getting one free. Full retail, plus shipping. Why? Because I don't like you. —ExplorerCDT 10:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
      • You have offered to send advance copies of the alleged book; I requested a copy as the first step in addressing this issue; and you refuse to send out the information you committed yourself to sending. As the unpublished material flagrantly violates both WP:RS and WP:V, in addition to likely issues of WP:NOR and WP:COI, the burden of proof rests with you, and no effort has been made to meet it. Until such time as there is clear consensus that you have not again violated Wikipedia policy, the reference to the material must be removed, and will be removed from all other articles making use of the invalid material. I strongly encourage you to substitute any valid, reliable sources you may have found in place of your original research, as a means to address this problem until consensus is reached. Alansohn 12:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, I offered to send advance copies, but I never guaranteed they would be free. If you want an advance copy, because I don't like you, I will have to demand payment. Other people, who I do like, will receive them free. Sorry, I don't like you, and that's the way it's going to be. —ExplorerCDT 11:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Given that you are now requiring purchase of the claimed book, I would have to add WP:SPAM to issues with inclusion of reference to this unpublished and invalid publication. If this is your response to the problems created in using invalid materials, it would seem far less likely than ever that the source is any more reliable. The issues with WP:COI and WP:NPOV only seem to be magnifying themselves in this context. I would again encourage you to include references to any valid, reliable sources that you may have found in place of your original research, as a means to address the violations you have created. Alansohn 12:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I was aware of the pending publication of the book when I peer reviewed Paulins Kill and mentioned it to ExplorerCDT then: "I also see one book cited that is not yet published and seems to be by you, which raises possible issues of both verifiability and no original research. I think the problem goes away once the book is published." (November 4, 2006, quote taken from here). At the time I had not read the policy on verifiability and the guideline on reliable sources as carefully as I should have and thought that if it were a problem, wiser and more experienced editors than I would raise the issue in WP:FAC (in fact, it was not mentioned there).

Having now carefully reread the guidelines on reliable sources and policy on verifiablity, I have to agree that until the book is published, any editor may challenge it as a reliable source and remove it from any article. Here is the clincher for me (from "in a nutshell" for WP:V, which is official policy):

  • Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
  • Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
  • The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.

So as I see it: 1) no article should cite the book until it is published; 2) any editor is well within her rights to remove the source from the articles in question; 3) once the book is published, wiser heads than I can decide if it is a reliable source; and 4) the whole question of reviewing the book for reliability is premature.

Having said that, I also want to add that in Paulins Kill at least, the book was backed up by other sources in all but one citation, and all the information covered by reference to the book seemed fine to me as far as I was able to check it (for example, there are Lenape language dictionaries online here). I assumed good faith before and still assume that the material in the book will prove to be carefully researched and accurate. Be that as it may, until it is published and deemed reliable, it should not be cited. I apologize for not raising this issue in FAC, as I was aware of it then. Ruhrfisch 15:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Agreed. I look forward to seeing the book -- once published -- and if it is indeed reliable, I would welcome and encourage its use in any and all articles relating to places in the two counties cited in the title. Yet, until publication, there is no legitimate justification to include the text in references. Once the book has been published, proper consideration should be made of the reliability and verifiability of the text. Until then, the original sources that are presumably cited in the text should be used in lieu of references to the yet-unpublished book, again as long as they are from reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn 17:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I am glad to hear the book will be published in three weeks. I still do not see how it can be cited until it is published. I am sorry about your loss and that all of this has come up at what is likely a difficult time for you. My sincere condolences,Ruhrfisch 16:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

C.S. Lewis

I just happened to see C.S. Lewis on the Good Article nominations page. After looking through the past few weeks, I'd be happy that it now has enough citations to be a Good Article. Do you want to have another look, or are you happy for me to promote it? Regards, The Land 21:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Funpika has failed the article for not using in-line citations, despite the good article criteria explicitly stating that they are not mandatory. Could someone please clarify? Martin 00:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Meetup

Singapore Meetup

Meetup 4
  • Status: Currently being planned

Please indicate your interest at the meetup page.
v • d •  e

Terence Ong 14:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Philadelphia Meetup 3

FYI ... Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia 3 --evrik (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Jupiter's ring system

Hi,

In the FAC for the Jupiter article you stated that:

The theory of ejected satellite material being the composition of Jupiter's rings has been thrown out with recent scholarships.

I've searched for references to your assertion, but everything I find up until 2003 still suggests that the material was ejected through bombardment. Could you possibly point me toward the source of your recent scholarship? Thank you. — RJH (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup

Sunday March 4, 2007
5pm
Independence Brew Pub

RSVP

Hey

Dear ExplorerCDT,

I noticed you enjoy writing and have been active in editing an FA article in the past. I just nominated the Ohio Wesleyan University article, an article that I've worked on for the past 5-6 months and received tremendous help from the League of Copyeditors. I was wondering if you might have some time to provide your opinion and feedback! Thank you so much for your time!

LaSaltarella 21:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Campbell's Soup Cans FAC2

You were fairly vocal in FAC1 and have not chimed in on FAC2. Your comments and hopefully support are welcome. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad Grammar

I noticed that under things you hate you mention one of them as Bad Grammar. Then in the very next section you posted "(as is half of those with northern European blood)". Shouldn't it be (as are half of those with northern European blood)? "He is, They are" Correct? I just thought it was too funny to pass up. By the way I am also from the Tampa Bay area and both my brothers live in Hell's Kitchen, or Clinton if you prefer. Colincbn 17:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

WCNY

Hi Christopher, Finally starting to poke around here and contribute rather than just using the content. Trying to decide where to get started and Wikipedia:WikiProject_New_York_City seems like as good a place as any. Hope to make it to a WCNY event sometime soon as well. Blckdmnd99 02:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/x/p/User_talk%7EExplorerCDT_4402.html"