User talk:Lquilter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- More or less on a wiki-break due to pressing family issues. If I don't respond right away that's why.
|
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#"tags" & tagging versus categorization
I very much liked your suggestion here. I've been waiting for some responses from others before I chimed in. It seems that there is little interest these days in discussions about categorization policy (the exception being WP:OCAT). I think you should write something about tagging, and post it. I don't think it will be very controversial. As for my category typing, I'm thinking we should just start doing it on a small scale, and see if it catches on. I replaced a {{catdiffuse}} tag with one of mine and there requested feedback and there was none. The true test of consensus is if changes survive. -- Samuel Wantman 21:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'll start drafting, & when I have something approaching discussable, I'll repost on the page. It might be a couple of weeks -- I'm wrapping up a big work project. --lquilter 16:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] merging of oral topics
If you remove the merge tags, I suggest you go ahead and also fix the articles. You seem to have a clear idea of how to separate their respective scopes, but if you look at what's actually in them, you see that they confusedly bleed into one anothers scope. I am not suggesting a merge because the cocepts are identical, but because the articles at present address the same scope and confuse issues. The best way to address this is to merge them, sort out the duplicities into a clean WP:SS article, and then branch out individual articles again if there is sufficient material. If you are going to fix things now, that is perfect. If you're just going to let it lie in the current state, I'm afraid I'll have to add back the templates, and clean things up along the lines I give above when I get round to it. regards, dab (𒁳) 13:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree that merging entirely disparate sets of subjects would be the "best way" to address confusingly written articles. It would be better to delete the confusing content from the individual articles. WP:SS is appropriate for articles on a single topic that grow larger. Merging these three topics would be like creating one page for "football" and "footwear" and explaining the differences. We do that on disambiguation pages where the same spelling means different things, but it is not really a good model for substantive content. I and other editors can work on these articles, especially if you cogently explain your concerns with them on the respective talk pages, and give people a chance to address them. Adding unexplained "merge" tags just confuses people and gives them no chance to fix whatever it is you see as the problem. See WP:MERGE which explains how to do merges (use both mergeto/mergefrom tags; explain on talk page) and when they're appropriate (nowhere does it suggest different topics that use the same words should be in one article). --lquilter 13:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Also -- I did some fixes, but it's really not correct to hijack someone into working on an article on an emergency basis through incorrect use of procedure. Merge proposals need to be tended to quickly; but disucssions about content can be handled more slowly. --lquilter 14:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- hm, it's not like I'm trying to merge apple and hippopotamus here. The scope of the articles in question is clearly overlapping. It is perfectly permissible to collect them under WP:SS as long as there isn't too much material to fit in a 50k or so article. I grant you that oral history should stay strictly separate, but then it should focus exclusively on academic usage, and restrict acknowledgment of "popular usage" to a single dablink to oral tradition. In this sense I withdraw that merge suggestion, but the article would need a cleanup tag instead. I still maintain that "oral literature" is an oxymoron, and the present article does recognize this and merely discuss terminological issues. A merge into oral tradition is still required here. dab (𒁳) 15:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I really suggest you raise these points on the relevant articles, where the regular editors have a chance to discuss them and remedy as they see fit. The talk page at oral literature suggests that there has been some dissension around renaming it from orature, which might have made the distinction clearer. Your points would feed into that discussion. Again, WP:MERGE says you need to explain your proposed merge on the talk page. --lquilter 15:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- hm, it's not like I'm trying to merge apple and hippopotamus here. The scope of the articles in question is clearly overlapping. It is perfectly permissible to collect them under WP:SS as long as there isn't too much material to fit in a 50k or so article. I grant you that oral history should stay strictly separate, but then it should focus exclusively on academic usage, and restrict acknowledgment of "popular usage" to a single dablink to oral tradition. In this sense I withdraw that merge suggestion, but the article would need a cleanup tag instead. I still maintain that "oral literature" is an oxymoron, and the present article does recognize this and merely discuss terminological issues. A merge into oral tradition is still required here. dab (𒁳) 15:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] CfD LGBT Scientists
Is it worth bringing this up for review? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 09:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Shrug. I argued harder for LGBT scientists initially, but I think African American scientists is at least as worth reviewing. There are numerous encyclopedic works that focus on the topic of "African American scientists", and there should be an article about them. LGBT scientists will be little harder, because there are relatively few out scientists, most of them modernly, and the ways that their queerness affects their work is going to be hard to demonstrate -- involving speculation or personal knowledge. (For instance the fact that every queer scientist I know basically limits themselves to the northeast or the west coast in terms of looking for jobs.) ... I haven't done the review process before, either -- have you? --lquilter 15:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you
Hi, Lquilter!
Thank you for being a voice of reason in the debate about deleting "Category:Erdös number 1". As a math guy, I appreciate your willingness to invite mathematicians to the party. If you see such a debate in the future, and you want to hear from the mathematicians, please send the invitation to this talk page. We'll be there in droves. ;^> DavidCBryant 13:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Favor
I saw your username listed as part of the WikiGenderStudies project. You wrote that one of your interests was making sure that women were more represented. I recently rewrote the Mary Wollstonecraft article (which has now attained FA status) and am now trying to achieve the same feat with A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. It is currently up for GAC right now and I was wondering, if you had time, if you might look over it. It is a difficult text to write on. I would, of course, be willing to help you out with anything you might need as well. Thanks. Awadewit 11:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, well, don't freak out at the lengthy comments. I honestly think it's very good right now, but have given it suggestions that I think would make it FA quality. So I gave it as thorough a review as I could. --lquilter 16:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I was greatly relieved by your comments. I am on the hunt for good reviewers right now. Clearly I have found one! Thank you so much for your thoughtful comments. I knew the page had some problems but I couldn't quite pin them down. Awadewit 20:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm a lawyer, so we're used to numerous revisions! It's very good as it stands but things can always be improved. --lquilter 21:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Lquilter, I've revised A Vindication of the Rights of Woman quite a bit now and was wondering if you would be interested in copyediting it with me. I have put it up for peer-review as well, but that does not usually elicit a close copyedit. I have done the first few run-throughs, but it needs a close eye and certainly the eye of a person who did not do most of the writing. I would really appreciate it. Thanks. By the way, I wanted to give you some sort of award for your extremely helpful comments - they were so insightful - but I couldn't find an award for "helpful commentary" or "helpful review." I think that I'm going to have to suggest one. (By the way, I looked at your website. We seem to share a lot of the same concerns about copyright and intellectual property.) Awadewit 14:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm a lawyer, so we're used to numerous revisions! It's very good as it stands but things can always be improved. --lquilter 21:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I was greatly relieved by your comments. I am on the hunt for good reviewers right now. Clearly I have found one! Thank you so much for your thoughtful comments. I knew the page had some problems but I couldn't quite pin them down. Awadewit 20:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies
Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of [unassessed articles] tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 21:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I just crossed paths
and swords (i voted the other way) with you at the IWW name change, went to your user page and thought I'd ask a question. If it is too much like what you do for work, it's not a problem. I can take NO for an answer pretty well. I know (or THINK I know) that 1923 is the cut off date for most copyright stuff published in the USA. So if I find a picture from say, 1888, published in a 1974 book, is that picture covered as of 1974 or 1888? Life is supposed to be interesting. Oh yes, and while I have you here, this is a non-legal (if there is such a thing) issue that I would like your opinion about. In my research into women sculptors I often learn that particular artists were lesbians or at least wore men's clothes and smoked cigars and that sort of thing. At what point should I mention it in the article? My daughter and I argue about this and I'd like a second, well, third, opinion. Carptrash 18:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- On copyright - As a general matter, in the US, a photo duplication of a public domain work is not going to have sufficient originality for a new copyright. So,if it was an exact photoduplication of an 1888 photo, then it wouldn't get a new copyright, and would be PD in the US. But that's as a general matter, and other considerations may apply -- if the photo was cropped etc. Wikipedia has its own set of policies so if this is a wikipedia matter you should read through Wikipedia:Copyright.
- On women sculptors I think it very much depends on the issue, but especially if it was non-gender-normative behavior and was something they were known for, then it should be mentioned in the rest of their biography. What's the argument against?
- And btw -- I will likely be offline for a few days so if I don't respond again that's why. --lquilter 18:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- The argument against (as presented by Lola from Lafayette, as she is occasionally known as on KLDK), is that such details (lesbianism) are sometimes added to women's biographies to somehow either discredit the artists or to titilate (or something) the male readers. That it is their work that is important and such information is a distraction. I have a long time affinity (though it has not yet shown up on wikipedia) with two sculptors, Frances Loring and Florence Wyle aka The Girls. Their first biographer insists that they were "just good friends", though they lived together for 50 years (carpmath) and died on Jan. 13 and Feb 3 of the same year, proving (well, perhaps not to an attorney) something. Harriet Hosmer is another one, and there are more. One of the truisms (yet another word for opinion) is that women sculptors - we are talking 19th and early 20th century here - is that their careers often ended when they got married. Augustus St. Gaudens cried when Mary Lawrence got married. Anyway, this was not really the case for lesbians, which is why (another opinion) there seems to be a higher number of them in sculpture. And so it goes. Don't worry aboput getting back to me in a hurry, I'm operating largely in shamanic time. Carptrash 19:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter
The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] On consensus
Wikipedia:Resolving disputes is the standard for how content disputes should be handled. In general, you use third opinions when only two editors are involved. Where multiple editors have expressed opinions already, the next step is an RfC if the both sides agree that there is a point to gathering more opinions.
The guideline for disruptive editors, on the other hand, is Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. There are three criteria:
- tendentious (much, much evidence)
- fails to cite sources or uses unacceptable sources or misquotes acceptable sources (I've seen some of that, but this needs to be documented
- rejects community input
So I think you should focus on the third - specifically, ask if the other editor is (a) willing to abide by an RfD, and/or (b) willing to participate in mediation (formal or informal), per the first policy cited. The point of this is primarily to see if matters can be resolved, and secondarily, if they cannot, to build a case that the editor will not accept community input. (Of course, if the community actually agrees with him/her, that ends that.)
If the other editor turns down by an RfC and any type of mediation, let's talk further. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] LGBT WikiProject newsletter
| The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||
[edit] Utopian list
Hello. I posted some responses to your comments on the utopia talkpage. I wonder if you have seen these? I am reluctant to "be bold" with this idea, and would appreciate feedback before I proceed. If you do not wish to contribute, I wonder if you could suggest any other editors who might be interested? Thank you. BrainyBabe 12:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Award
The Editor's Barnstar
 |
The Editor's Barnstar | |
| I, Awadewit, award this Barnstar to Lquilter for her careful reading of and commentary on A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. |
[edit] Your message
I'm afraid that I lost patience with him at the end. It seems impossible to get through to him, unfortunately — as you've found out too. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Just saying hi ;-)
Hey, I got your e-mail a while back, and I think we were both having e-mail issues. I hope you are doing well. (Yikes, I just saw the header...I hope things get better for you and your family. If there is anything I can help you with, please contact me.) —Viriditas | Talk 23:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Women writers
I just (finally) submitted the category for review for reinstatement. Fingers crossed. scribblingwoman 14:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It's back on CFD now. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 23#Category:Women writers. I haven't commented yet, I'm thinking. But I thought you'd like a heads-up. — coelacan — 22:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WP:UW future?
Hi Lquilter,
Sorry for the blatant spam, but you have yourself down as interested at WikiProject user warnings WP:UW. There is a discussion on going here that might be of interest to you about the future of this project. There are two strawpolls on the talk pages and the second one is about the future of the WP:UW project. Now we have the end in sight we are looking at wrapping up the project and merging it with Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM and creating a one stop shop for all userspace templates. As you have yourself down as interested in this project we thought you may have some input on this issue, and would like you to visit the discussion and give any thoughts you may have on the matter. Cheers Khukri 10:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
