User talk:Lindsay658/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is a sequential collection of archives from User talk:Lindsay658

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Lindsay658/Archive! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! Kukini
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

Kukini 03:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Placebo/Nocebo

Sorry for my delay in replying. Here's what I think:

  • As a general principle, I prefer fewer, longer pages; they seem to me to result in a more stable article. I would make two pages, maybe Placebo and Nocebo, and give each three sections. That would also give you more scope to develop things.
  • I have no special knowledge of this field, but please make sure you don't do any original research. If these subjects, and this terminology, is already in use, that's great. If they are neologisms, or if the page includes your own original ideas, or an original synthesis of known facts, then that would not be a direction we want to go in.
  • Be bold, but realize everyone else will be bold as well. People will likely disagree with some part of what you add, and there will be discussion and compromise. I probably won't be able to add much right now because I have some work in the real world to take care of, but I'll look in later and see how everything is going.

Best,Tom Harrison Talk 00:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That looks very good. The notes and references are thorough. I'm glad you addresed word origins and cultural uses. You'll probably want to go to other articles and add links to Placebo (origins of technical term), both for the reader and to draw in other editors who might be working on related material. Tom Harrison Talk 12:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I did encourage an administrator friend of mine to look at this issue as well. Do you have it worked out now? Also, you might not want to revert information in user talk pages. It is generally not considered appropriate. Do you still need help? Kukini 03:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
It's ok now. I found out how to do it. I had made some sort of error. Sorry, too, about taking the piece off your site. I have restored it. Thank you for the lesson in manners. I am grateful for your kindness. Lindsay658 04:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
No problem...and I was not trying to teach you manners. You appear to have wonderful manners. I was only trying to let you know how people generally react to deleting of text (that is not vandalism) in user talk pages. Oh, and on another note...you seem to be doing wonderful work!!! Keep it up, and welcome once again to the wikicommunity. Kukini 04:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your addition of Nocebo to "See also" sections

Good day. I find that you have added a link to Nocebo into a "See also" section on Richard K. Sorenson, U.S. Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipient. I cannot determine the relationship between the Nocebo article and Sorenson. I have removed the link at this time. If you believe that there is a relationship and it is appropriate for the article, please discuss it on the Sorenson article's talk page. Thanks. —ERcheck (talk) @ 06:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Ditto Placebo (origins of technical term) to Charles Darwin. ..dave souza, talk 06:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of See also links

Lindsay. Thanks for your thoughtful reply on the Richard K. Sorenson talk page. I've left a response there related to the specifics for that article. I'm moving here for a more general discussion.

My first reaction when I saw the link was to simply revert it and leave a brief message asking you to stop putting "nonsense" into other articles, especially when I found that you had put the similar link in other articles. As you can see by the comment from Dave souza above, your additions raised a red flag. However, as one of the key concepts of Wikipedia, I assumed good faith on your part.

In reading your talk page and the level of effort that went into your Wikipedia contributions, it seems that you are truly interested in being a contributor. (Vandalism is an issue on Wikipedia which requires a significant effort of many; as you see, your additions were quickly noticed and inquires made.) I offer some advice to help you avoid other editors reverting your See also additions:

  • When I followed the link to the Nocebo article, the lead-in paragraph referred to its use in medical terminology, with specifics related to drugs. The usage for which you were using Sorenson as the example is buried; so, it seemed that the link was totally unrelated. It would be helpful if your lead in paragraph(s) would give and indication of the more general usage that is elaborated on in deeper in the article.
  • While cross referencing is good, sometimes a one-way reference is more appropriate. In "See also", the concept should be "related". If the relationship is not obvious, add a short explanation. (See the Wikipedia guide on writing articles description of "See also" and other standard appendices.)
  • When you add the same link to many aricles, it raises notice as many are patrolling for vandalism and spammers. Although this addition was not spam, if you check out WP:SPAM, will see that adding the same link to many articles, where the relationship is not apparent, may result in rapid reverts.

Your contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated. I hope this helps you navigate the waters more easily. Please feel free to visit my talk page if you have questions on this, or any other topics. I'll try my best to help. —ERcheck (talk) @ 12:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks, ERcheck. I am grateful that you now understand that I was not engaged in any intentional vandalism. Therefore, because I was not adding or deleting or making any changes in content "in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia", I believe that I can request that the "Vandalism" banner be removed from the top of my talk page (I have made a similar request to Dave souza).
  • Also, I now understand the differences between cross-referencing the words in the article text and the appearance of such items in what I might call source-to-target directives in the "See also" links at the foot of the source article.
  • I also understand that the third level of cross-referencing, the target-to-source directives in the "See also" links at the foot of the target article, must be far more sparingly used; and, in the case of possible misapprehension of the intention, that the the target-to-source directives in the "See also" links at the foot of the target article, have further text explanations.
  • For example, I made a change today to the "featured in the news" article Antikythera mechanism's "See also" section. I inserted Reverse engineering and then, at the Reverse engineering article's "See also" section:
Antikythera mechanism: a famous example of Reverse engineering.

I thought that it was important to have a both-way link. I hope that this indicates that I have listened to your advice and and learned from it. Thanks againLindsay658 05:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. ERcheck's given very sound advice, and I'm glad to see you're taking it to heart. If a link is specific to a particular point in an article, it's best to add it there rather than in the "See also" section which (especially in larger articles) is really for things with a general relevance that aren't linked in the text. Although your link's reference to Darwin was pretty obscure, it was of interest and I've incorporated it into explanatory text at A Devil's Chaplain and The Parson's Prologue and Tale. Vandalism to some articles is so common that it's easy to take the obscure as yet another attack (I've just reverted some vandalism to Charles Darwin), but obviously in your case this was a learning curve, so I'll see what I can do about the unsightly tag. In the meantime it would be great if you could review the other "See also" links you've added (click on the "My contributions" link at the top of the page if you need to check where) and improve them or remove them as appropriate. ..dave souza, talk 10:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Lindsay — the vandal tag was added by Wighson (talk) close to nine hours after my second note above. (You can find this information by going to your talk page and then clicking on the history tab at the top. You can look at a previous version by clicking on its time-date. I'm going to add a signature to that entry so.) I'm not sure what Wighson was referring to with his tag. Dave sousa has indicated that he will address the vandal tag issue, thus, I will leave it to him. Please feel free to check back with me if an issue remains. —ERcheck (talk) @ 11:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Addendum: I've haven't communicated with User:Wighson on the tag; and have not found any places where he reverted your additions. However, upon further review of your contributions (see Dave souza's note above on how to find the list), you made a great number of additions of "See also" with Nocebo, Placebo (and its variants), etc. For the most part, they fall under your third bullet point above. I agree with Dave — it would be appropriate for you to review those "See also" additions. I hope you receive this in the spirit it is offered — helping you navigate the waters. I look forward to the contributions you will be making and appreciate the efforts you are making, both on your own and by asking questions, to learn the nuances of Wikipedia. —ERcheck (talk) @ 17:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Dave souza & ERcheck:Thanks for your guidance and instruction. I have done as suggested. I have removed maybe 60% of them, made notes to a few of them, and left the rest in place (also, some had already been removed and, in those cases, I agreed with the decision to remove them). I only hope that such a wide range of "movements" won't raise another accusation of "vandalism". Lindsay658 23:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Lindsay, just below the edit window, there is a place for "Edit summary". It is considered good form to include edit summaries for any changes you make. It gives other editors a quick view of what you did — and would give those on vandal patrol a quick summary of why you made changes. You could put something as simple as "removing 'See also' link - see talk page", and then add something to the talk page to explain your deletion.

Thanks for all your effort. BTW, I note that Dave left a note for Wighson. I expect that the vandal tag will be removed soon. —ERcheck (talk) @ 01:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

After due notice, tag removed : ) ,,dave souza, talk 20:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks a million Lindsay658 23:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Kenneth G. Ross

Hi Lindsay, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for recognising my contributions to everything CGS-related here, but it's really all coming from my own knowledge (I'm a lifelong student of the school) and Google research. Thus, I've never had any contact with the CGA, and wouldn't even know where their offices are. So I'll see what I can do, but don't have too high expectations in this regard (there is literally zero involvement with students from the CGA).

Anyway, as I have your attention, could you check how thorough you think the list of ex-students is? I've compiled it based on my knowledge of alumni (word of mouth, history, etc.) and through Google turning up leads (eg. Peter Dowding), but maybe you are aware of some older students - I'm basing this on your references to 1950s records. If not, that's fine, and hopefully you will continue with your much appreciated contributions to Wikipedia. Harro5 06:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E. Morton Jellinek

Hi. I was wondering if you were working on his article, or if you were going to leave it like that. If you're still working, that's fine, but otherwise its likely to be deleted as being too small and not asserting notability. thanks Adambiswanger1 04:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, reply on your page. Cheers, Lindsay658 06:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Relply on my page Adambiswanger1 06:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Done. : ) Adambiswanger1 06:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Great job on the article. I'll remove the "rewrite" tag. AdamBiswanger1 16:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
forgot to log in at UNSW; changes made on 17 June 2006 & 18 June 2006 to Jellinek article were made by Lindsay658 -- showing one of the many UNSW addresses (129.94.6.28)Lindsay658 01:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cut and pasting Chinese characters

If you can read Chinese, but don't know how to use an input method editor to type Chinese, then the best alternative is to cut and paste from an on-line dictionary. My favorite is at [1] where you can pick the text by pinyin, but you need to switch the browser encoding to Big5 to see the characters. Just select the characters and then cut and paste it into wikipedia's edit window. Looks like wikipedia automatically converts the Big5 characters into UTF-8 Unicode if each of the respective windows is truthful about its own character encoding. i.e. if you can see the text displayed correctly, the cut and paste will work. Enjoy the ease of Chinese and Good luck! Kowloonese 00:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
For your great work in the E. Morton Jellinek article. It is well-sourced, well-written, and well-deserving of a barnstar. Great job AdamBiswanger1 13:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox

I am trying to construct a sandbox so that I can use it exclusively for the setting up of a section of a page. The main purpose is to use it to overcome the large number of very small alterations that I seem to be making, as I get an article into correct form. I have been to Wikipedia:Sandbox, and it says "For a sandbox of your own, create a user subpage". I don't know how to do this for myself at Lindsay658. I'm sure that it is quite a simple procedure; however it is quite beyond my limited experience and understanding. I hope that someone can guide me.Lindsay658 04:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

All you have to do is create the page User:Lindsay658/Sandbox --GeorgeMoney T·C 04:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. I'm always here to help if you need anything :) --GeorgeMoney T·C 04:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Four types of error

I replied on my talk page. As a relatively new user, I don't know whether you are "watch"ing it, so I'm letting you know, here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jellinek

Hi Lindsay-- Well, I'm really on your side here. Regarding the "alcoholism" article, it seems that "Drgitlow" is unfamiliar with the workings of Wikipedia and does not wish to describe his controversial views as indeed controversial. In my humble opinion, it works like this: If the answer is not known, one simply explains the rationales and viewpoints of both sides. How does Gitlow respond to the medical evidence that you have presented? Is he just ignoring it? And about the Jellinek article, I think you're half right and half wrong. Yes, we should use the article primarily as a place to merely state his opinions and findings, but if further scientific evidence or inclination points away from his conclusions, we should state that briefly with a link to the relevant section in the alcoholism article. But, as we know, the scientific evidence is rather conflicting. This is a particularly difficult issue to mediate. AdamBiswanger1 21:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I just want to say one more thing: If you think that poor edits have been made to E. Morton Jellinek, don't be afraid to change them and use your best judgment. (just provide a good edit summary and avoid edit warring or 3RR). You know much more about the issue than I, so I'll leave it up to you. Good luck, AdamBiswanger1 22:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow that was good. You tore him up while still being civil, and I can't for one minute imagine him, if he is who he claims to be, replying without first defending himself. Hopefully you'll have shed some light on his closed-mindedness and he'll be more self-conscious when editing. AdamBiswanger1 22:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm peripherally involved in the Alcoholism Talkpage now, hoping that I can help achieve a consensus there; I'll also be watching Jellinek (a fascinating article BTW). I wanted to make an observation though Lindsay: After carefully researching the literature and consulting with several notable experts I want to point out that the abjuration "Go Away" is unlikely to produce results. Traditionally you should use the phrase "Begone foul shade!" whilst brandishing a crucifix and/or holy water. I hope this helps :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 23:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, "Begone foul shade!" might have actually lent some humor to the post, thus making it clear that the entire verbal assault was as tongue-in-cheek as it must have been in reality. Otherwise, one might have felt that an iron mace had been used to fend off a holiday gift. At a minimum, though, it was interesting to be described as a multiple organism. I can't say I've ever heard that before. Drgitlow 16:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cao Yu

Hi Lindsay. I saw your message on Cao Yu's talk page, wanted to thank you for catching the error(s), and am duplicating my response to you there: You are right that I am completely unfamiliar with the systems and request that you, as someone who is obviously much more conversant than I with the systems, and much better situated to do a proper job, be bold and fix whatever I cocked up!--Fuhghettaboutit 22:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Just in case both of us get lost, I, too, am duplicating my response here:
Sorry, if I came over as being super-critical; all I meant was that what you have as:
(pinyin: 萬家寶; Wade-Giles: 万家宝),
should read either (traditional characters: 萬家寶; simplified characters: 万家宝), or (Wan Chia-pao, in Wade-Giles transcription) depending upon your intention -- although I suspected it was the first, I wasn't sure, and that's why I left you the note.
Also, in terms of any Chinese issues it is always best to show the two sets of characters, and you are to be congratulated for doing so. It can also be strongly argued that, due to the complications of English language literature, it is also best to provide both the Pin-Yin and Wade-Giles transcriptions for anything prior to, say, 1990 (as you have done at the head of the article). Keep up the good workLindsay658 23:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't take it as critical at all! but I also would find it hard to fix as it really is completely outside my experience. My only familiarity with Cao Yu was translating the article from the Spanish Wikipedia article and doing outside research to try to make it correct. Let me put it a different way, please fix what I don't believe myself competent to fix:-)--Fuhghettaboutit
Done! Glad to help. Lindsay658 23:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

You don't have to change all the links to Type I and type II errors, just the double redirects (the ones that are both marked redirects and have white dots on the what links here page. I count five undone. If they're still there when I get done with what I'm doing now, I'll come help. (I think there is a bot, but I don't know which one.) Septentrionalis 01:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder of the need to make things easy for others; also, thanks for the tip on dates, numbers, etc. In my defence, at the moment I am having to try and deal with an incessant, unrelenting serial Wiki-pest who has just doscovered my piece on E. Morton Jellinek, and it is all rather distressing. However, I must take more care to ensure that I do not, in turn, cause distress for others. I really appreciate you taking the time to guide me on this. I am rather new to it all. Best to you Lindsay658 04:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership

Hello Lindsay658 I want to ask you to review Wikipedia's policy on ownership. Telling another editor to "go away" [2] never acceptable. Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Civility are key policies that every editor must follow. If you have a difference of an opinion with another editor, please follow the dispute resolution policy to reach consensus. Let me know if you have questions about how to apply these policies to a particular situation . You can contact me on my talk page or by email. Take care, FloNight talk 05:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear FloNight,
Surely somebody in WIki must be able to recognize that separate (or collective) entities, such as that known as "Drgitlow", who are representing narrow interest groups, are the equivalent of vexatious litigants and need to be somehow proactively curtailed from disturbing the peace and industry of others, who are doing their best to contribute to the knowledge of the planet.
There are many Wiki-centred disputes with this individual (or collective) entity known as "Drgitlow", which I strongly suspect is loitering continuously behind the scenes, with their instructions from their "alcohol IS a disease" lobbyist in their hand, earnestly promoting their bizarre views within a forum that has a practice of "mediation" and "concilation" -- meaning that busy people are compelled to discharge the "burden of proof" that is laid upon them by the craziness or intransigence of this entity which, for its own fell purposes, has decided to intrude.
In simple terms there are many, many objections to this fellow's intrusion. I will not waste time detailing the list of some 37 obbjections that can be raised. Let me lay just two before you:
(1) He is, in all of his/her/their arrogance assuming that his usage of the term "disease" is the only correct usage. In other words he is claiming that the word "disease" in all of its uses is a polysemous word. It is in fact a homonym, in which many uses just happen to share the same written form, and he/she/they is sneakily, and with honeyed words, that seem to fool people like you, insinuating that his/her/their meaning is the only one. Once this individual (or collective) entity realizes -- which, obviously, that he/she/they never will -- that there are many referents for the term "disease" (just the same as there are many referents for the term "alcoholism") he will leave everybody else alone, and get on with promoting matters connected with his own, idiosyncratic referent, and allow those discussing a different referent to get on with their discussion in a civilized cooperative fashion.
(2) The entire planet Earth is a vastly larger and a far more varied place than the USA.
I am very, very upset about the fact that this serial pest -- who is being threatened with diciplinary action in other parts of WIKI (a fact which no doubt explains his/her/their decision to extend his/her/their territory and commence vandalism of the Jellinek article) -- has forced me to remove the entirely correct statement that the allegation that "alcoholism" is a "disease" is a heated matter (something to which which his/her/their bizarre intrusions have certainly attested), from an article that is, simply dealing with the life of a man called Jellinek.
I have much that I can contribute to WIKI; but, if I can not be protected from non-"innnocent" intruders, with nothing but harm in their motives, such as this particular individual (or collective) entity -- and, as a consequence I am forced to go through the lengthiest of processes, with none of the economic or corporate backing of such interest groups -- I must seriously reconsider my decision to contribute useful things to WIKI.
I am certainly not concerned with "ownership" of the article, but I am very concerned with the veracity of its content; and the bizarre and entirely inappropriate intrusions of this particular individual (or collective) entity have acted strongly against this.
I completely understand the advantages of a co-operative endeavour. I am only concerned that correct and reliable information appears (and the efforts of this serial pest are significantly counter-productive to that effort).
However, an individual invading an article with a malicious motive, with no other reason than to promote the interests of their own narrow interest group seem very, very far from the world of science and objective scholarship.
Al long as people fail to recognize that he/she/they is/are using words to denote referents that are entirely different from that of the others who engaged in a particular enterprise, those people will also fail to recognize that whatever view or views that he/she/they is/are espousing, no matter how well they may be argued, have no relevance at all to the matter in hand -- and, as a consequence, need to be argued somewhere else.
I am grateful for your concern over my behaviour, because it give me some indication of the extent to which you are also going to ever so closely examine the intrusions of this serial pest into the work of others, and the extent to which he/she/they is/are involved with a stratospheric wastage of valuable time that could be used by a wide range of Wiki contributors for other, far more productive endeavours.
Finally, in terms of "assuming good faith" there is not a single skerrick of evidence that would support such an assumption in the case of this particular individual (or collective) entity.
I recognize the extent to which you are compelled, by your official Wiki-position, to write to me and support the individual (or collective) entity known as "Drgitlow", and I respectfully ask you to, in turn, recognize that I have carefully read what you have written, taken heed of it, and that I wish you all the best. Lindsay658 07:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Lindsay658, you need to read the policies that I have listed above. They explain in detail the correct method for dealing with your concerns. I need to remind you that "your opinions" are no more valid than "other editors opinions". If you read the policy you will see that calling someone "a serial pest" is not acceptable.
All editors give their time to Wikipedia. You will be very frustrated here if you do not learn to expect to spend many hours discussing edits on the talk page to gain consensus. That is the Wikipedia way!
You are incorrect to say: "this serial pest -- who is being threatened with diciplinary action in other parts of WIKI (a fact which no doubt explains his/her/their decision to extend his/her/their territory and commence vandalism of the Jellinek article)". The phrase "individual invading an article with a malicious motive" is also not an acceptable way to describe another editors contributions.
You should not refer to Wikipedia dispute resolution process as a disciplinary action. Again I remind you that almost all active editors will engage in getting a 2nd opinion, straw polls, content RFC, and mediation to settle their differences.
Please take some time to think about what I have written. You are still new here and need to learn the ropes. I encourage you to come to me with questions so we can make sure that you stay within policy while adding your contributions. Take care, --FloNight talk 08:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for elaborating your understanding of the convention of the "rules of engagement" with respect to a lobbyist. In future, if such a circumstance arises again, I will immediately seek out your assistance, rather than clumsily attempting to deal with the matter all on my own. Best to you Lindsay658 21:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help please

I am puzzled by something that has happened to the article Essentially Contested Concepts. Up to a very short time ago, the following appeared at the head of the article:

Notepad
 To comply with Wikipedia's quality standards, this article may need to be rewritten.
Reason: 6 July 2006
Please help improve this article. The discussion page may contain suggestions.

Now the following appears in its place:

Notepad
 To comply with Wikipedia's quality standards, this article may need to be rewritten.
Reason: length by a scribe on the 23rd of July 1996
Please help improve this article. The discussion page may contain suggestions.

My query is in two parts:

(a) Is this description, which I have never seen before, "This article is being rewritten at length by a scribe on the DATE" a more appropriate way of marking articles such as this when, in fact, I am actually contributing a lot of new text over a reasonably short period of time -- rather than another, different case, where I may be editing the text that is already presented in the existing article (without any significant "additions" being made to the text)? The reason for this question is that I have never seen such a tag before.
(b) Is the fact that somebody has gone to such trouble to change the tag that was already there, and placed the date "23rd of July 1996" (nearly 10 years ago) an indication of anything sinister? Or is it part of some sort of on-going within-Wiki joke, the nature of which I am yet to understand?

Can you guide me on how to deal with this strange event, please Lindsay658 17:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

What that person did was vandalism. You should see Help:Reverting, revert their edit, and put {{subst:test1}} (or if they have received warnings, then {{subst:test2}}, etc..) on their talk page. GeorgeMoney (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I have done what you have instructed; as it is just an IP address (59.167.36.125), there doesn't seem to be anything else to do. Thanks a lot. Lindsay658 17:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Placebo, etc.

Thanks for the update - look forward to your polished piece! Aquirata 01:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] chinese romanization

hi there. thanks for your work on romanization. you might consider shortening it, though -- as it is, it reads more like an academic essay (a secondary source) than an encyclopedia article (a tertiary source). for example, if you look at other wikipedia articles you'll see they don't normally quote long sections of text; nor do they typically spell out in detail the exact reasoning underlying historical decisions unless there is a particularly compelling reason to. but please do keep up the good work! Benwing 05:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the comment in Talk:Tien Gow Kowloonese 06:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] philosophical societies

Done; but it looks rather lonely sat there all by itself. Do you know of any others? Banno 20:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have done as much as I can. It seems that it could well be due to the absence of a Category:Philosophical societies site is responsible for the currently small number of entries (e.g., there is no entry for the Australasian Association of Philosophy).
Also, I suppose, it is a matter of opinion whether organizations of several centuries' duration that have philosophy/philosopher/philosophical in their title but are, essentially, devoted to what we would now label as "hard science" ought to be included.
Also, cross-discipline areas that, by stipulation, include philosophy, such as Cognitive Science, need to be considered and enclosed or rejected.
Also, threre seem to be number of societies that have philosophy/philosopher/philosophical in their title which seem to be far more like debating societies.
I am not sure whether there are any other wiki entries that ought to be included. Anyway, I have done my best to get the ball rolling. Cheers, Lindsay658 03:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Lindsay Banno 05:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Short articles

Hi. Please avoid creating such short articles. "He was president of the Aristotelian Society from 1913 to 1914" is a speedy deletion candidate for lack of content/context. Thanks.  :) - Lucky 6.9 06:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I hear and obey. Lindsay658 06:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speech acts

Hello, Lindsay. I'm still on a Wikibreak but I take notice of your request, and I'll try to select some useful sources. Sorry for the delay. Louie 02:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance in due courseLindsay658 05:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Lindsay! You may find this reference useful: Smith, B. (1990). "Towards a history of speech act theory" in Burkhardt, A., editor, Speech Acts, Meanings and Intentions. Critical Approaches to the Philosophy of John R. Searle. de Gruyter, Berlin/New York. I just remembered reading it in the talk page for Speech acts. As far as I recall, Smith makes the connections to scholastic philosophers and Reid. There may be more though.--- Cheers! Louie 17:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darrell Lea

Hello - thanks for the comment on my Talk page. I stand by my removal of the warning, for the reasons I've set out at Talk:Darrell Lea. Loganberry (Talk) 22:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Null hypotheses

Hi there,

Over on the null hypothesis talk page, I've been canvassing for opinions on a change that I plan to make regarding the formulation of a null hypothesis. However I've just noticed your excellent edits on Type I and type II errors. In particular, in the null hypothesis section you say:

The consistent application by statisticians of Neyman and Pearson's convention of representing "the hypothesis to be tested" (or "the hypothesis to be nullified") with the expression Ho -- associated with an increasing tendency to incorrectly read the expression's subscript as a zero, rather than an "O" (for "original") -- has led to circumstances where many understand the term "the null hypothesis" as meaning "the nil hypothesis". That is, they incorrectly understand it to mean "there is no phenomenon", and that the results in question have arisen through chance.

Now I know the trouble with stats in empirical science is that everyone is always feeling their way to some extent -- it's an inexact science that tries to bring sharp definition to the real world! But I'm really intrigued to know what you're basing this statement on -- I'm one of those people who has always understood the null hypothesis to be a statement of null effect. I've just dug out my old undergrad notes on this, and that's certainly what I was taught at Cambridge; and it's also what my stats reference (Statistical Methods for Psychology, by David C. Howell) seems to suggest. In addition, whenever I've been an examiner for public exams, the markscheme has tended to state the definition of a null as being a statement of null effect.

I'm a cognitive psychologist rather than a statistician, so I'm entirely prepared to accept that this may be a common misconception, but was wondering whether you could point me towards some decent reference sources that try to clear this up, if so! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sjb90 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Sjb90 . . . There are three papers by Neyman and Pearson:
  • Neyman, J. & Pearson, E.S., "On the Use and Interpretation of Certain Test Criteria for Purposes of Statistical Inference, Part I", reprinted at pp.1-66 in Neyman, J. & Pearson, E.S., Joint Statistical Papers, Cambridge University Press, (Cambridge), 1967 (originally published in 1928).
  • Neyman, J. & Pearson, E.S., "The testing of statistical hypotheses in relation to probabilities a priori", reprinted at pp.186-202 in Neyman, J. & Pearson, E.S., Joint Statistical Papers, Cambridge University Press, (Cambridge), 1967 (originally published in 1933).
  • Pearson, E.S. & Neyman, J., "On the Problem of Two Samples", reprinted at pp.99-115 in Neyman, J. & Pearson, E.S., Joint Statistical Papers, Cambridge University Press, (Cambridge), 1967 (originally published in 1930).
Unfortunately, I do not have these papers at hand and, so, I can not tell you precisely which of these papers was the source of this statement; but I can assure you that the statement was made on the basis of reading all three papers. From memory, I recall that they were quite specific in their written text and in their choice of mathematical symbols to stress that it was O for original (and not 0 for zero). Also, from memory, I am certain that the first use of the notion of a "null" hypothesis comes from:
  • Fisher, R.A., The Design of Experiments, Oliver & Boyd (Edinburgh), 1935.
And, as I recall, Fisher was adamant that whatever it was to be examined was the NULL hypothesis, because it was the hypothesis that was to be NULLIFIED.
I hope that is of some assistance to you.
It seems that it is yet one more case of people citing citations that are also citing a citation in someone else's work, rather than reading the originals.
The second point to make is that the passage you cite from my contribution was 100% based on the literature (and, in fact, the original articles).
Finally, and this comment is not meant to be a criticism of anyone in particular, simply an observation, I came across something in social science literature that mentioned a "type 2 error" about two years ago. It took me nearly 12 months to track down the source to Neyman and Pearson's papers. I had many conversations with professional mathematicians and statisticians and none of them had any idea where the notion of Type I and type II errors came from and, as a consequence, I would not be at all surprised to find that the majority of mathematicians and statisticians had no idea of the origins and meaning of "null" hypothesis.
I'm not entirely certain, But I have a feeling that Fisher's work -- which I cited as "Fisher (1935, p.19)", and that reference would be accurate -- was an elaboration and extension of the work of Neyman and Pearson (and, as I recall, Fisher completely understood the it was an oh, rather than a zero in the subscript). Sorry I can't be of any more help. The collection that contains the reprints of Neyman and Pearson's papers and the book by Fisher should be fairly easy for you to find in most university libraries.Lindsay658 22:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the references, Lindsay658 -- I'll dig them out, and have a bit of a chat with my more statsy colleagues here, and will let you know what we reckon. I do agree that it's somewhat non-ideal that such a tenet of experimental design is described rather differently in a range of texts!
As a general comment, I think it entirely acceptable for people working in a subject, or writing a subject-specific text book / course to read texts more geared towards their own flavour of science, rather than the originals. After all, science is built upon the principle that we trust much of the work created by our predecessors, until we have evidence to do otherwise, and most of these derived texts tend to be more accessible to the non-statistician. However I agree that, when writing for e.g. Wikipedia, it is certainly useful to differentiate between 'correct' and 'common' usage, particularly when the latter is rather misleading. This is why your contribution intrigued me so -- I look forward to reading around this and getting back to you soon -- many thanks for your swift reply! -- Sjb90 07:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


OK, I've now had a read of the references that you mentioned, as well as some others that seemed relevant. Thanks again for giving me these citations -- they were really helpful. This is what I found:
  • First of all, you are quite right to talk of the null hypothesis as the 'original hypothesis' -- that is, the hypothesis that we are trying to nullify. However Neyman & Pearson do in fact use a zero (rather than a letter 'O') as the subscript to denote a null hypothesis. In this way, they show that the null hypothesis is merely the original in a range of possible hypotheses: H0, H1, H2 ... Hi.
  • As you mentioned, Fisher introduced the term null hypothesis, and defines this a number of times in The Design of Experiments. When talking of an experiment to determine whether a taster can successfully discriminate whether milk or tea was added first to a cup, Fisher defines his null hypothesis as "that the judgements given are in no way influenced by the order in which the ingredients have been added ... Every experiment may be said to exist only in order to give the facts a chance of disproving the null hypothesis."
  • Later, Fisher talks about fair testing, namely in ensuring that other possible causes of differentiation (between the cups of tea, in this case) are held fixed or are randomised, to ensure that they are not confounds. By doing this, Fisher explains that every possible cause of differentiation is thus now i) randomised; ii) a consequence of the treatment itself (order of pouring milk & tea), "of which on the null hypothesis there will be none, by definition"; or iii) an effect "supervening by chance".
  • Furthermore, Fisher explains that a null hypothesis may contain "arbitrary elements" -- e.g. in the case where H0 is "that the death-rates of two groups of animal are equal, without specifying what those death-rates actually are. In such cases it is evidently the equality rather than any particular values of the death-rates that the experiment is designed to test, and possibly to disprove."
  • Finally, Fisher emphasises that "the null hypothesis must be exact, that is free from vagueness and ambiguity, because it must supply the basis of the 'problem of distribution,' of which the test of significance is the solution". He gives an example of a hypothesis that can never be a null hypothesis: that a subject can make some discrimination between two different sorts of object. This cannot be a null hypothesis, as it is inexact, and could relate to an infinity of possible exact scenarios.
So, where does that leave us? I propose to make the following slight changes to the Type I and type II errors page and the null hypothesis page.
  • I will tone down the paragraph about original vs. nil hypotheses: the subscript is actually a zero, but it is entirely correct that the hypothesis should not be read as a "nil hypothesis" -- I agree that it is important to emphasise that the null hypothesis is that one that we are trying to nullify.
  • In the null hypothesis article, I will more drastically change the paragraph that suggests that, for a one-tailed test, it is possible to have a null hypothesis "that sample A is drawn from a population whose mean is lower than the mean of the population from which sample B is drawn". As I had previously suspected, this is actively incorrect: such a hypothesis is numerically inexact. The null hypothesis, in the case described, remains "that sample A is drawn from a population with the same mean as sample B".
  • I will tone down my original suggestion slightly: A null hypothesis isn't a "statement of no effect" per se, but in an experiment (where we are manipulating an independent variable), it logically follows that the null hypothesis states that the treatment has no effect. However null hypotheses are equally useful in an observation (where we may be looking to see whether the value of a particular measured variable significantly differs from that of a prediction), and in this case the concept of "no effect" has no meaning.
  • I'll add in the relevant citations, as these really do help to resolve this issue once and for all!
Thanks again for your comments on this. I will hold back on my edits for a little longer, in case you have any further comments that you would like to add!
-- Sjb90 17:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your changes. As you can see from [[3]],

[[4]], [[5]], and [[6]] I really didn't have a lot to work with.

I believe that it might be helpful to make some sort of comment to the effect that when statisticians work -- rather than scientists, that is -- they set up a question that is couched in very particular terms and then try to disprove it (and, if it can not be disproved, the proposition stands, more or less by default).
The way that the notion of just precisely how the issue of a "null hypothesis" is contemplated by "statisticians" and the way that this (to common ordinary people counter-intuitive notion) of, essentially, couching one's research question as the polar opposite of what one actually believes to be the case (by contrast with "scientists" who generally couch their research question in terms of what they actually believe to be the case) is something that someone like you could far better describe than myself -- and, also, I believe that it would be extremely informative to the more general reader. All the best in your editing. If you have any queries, contact me again pls. Lindsay658 21:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Just a note to say that I have finally had the chance to sit down and word some changes to the Null hypothesis article and the section on Type_I_and_type_II_errors#The_null_hypothesis. Do shout and/or make changes if you think my changes are misleading/confusing! -- Sjb90 11:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kalli

Didn't get whether what you said here was that you wanted to know more about it, or that more should be written in the article. If it is the former, you can read it in the Wisden coverage of the series and here Tintin 10:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Tintin, I have established a wiki-internal link within the Kalli article. I think that might fix things up. Perhaps, either at Greig or at Kalli there should be links to the two sources you cite?Lindsay658 00:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Placebo etc.

Hello, I've recently been reviewing the Placebo pages and I have been very impressed by your contributions in the discussion. I'm currently working on a historical piece on the subject, and I'm interested to know if you have formally written on placebo. If so, could you please forward me some references of your own work for consultation. Feel free to contact me via email at rwalfa@gmail.com . Best regards, Ralfa 13:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Colin Benham

A tag has been placed on Colin Benham requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Closedmouth (talk) 05:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I really suggest you use a user subpage (such as User:Lindsay658/Colin Benham) to write the article, that way, even if the article was to be deleted your work would still be intact. Also there wouldn't be a blank article in the encyclopedia. --Michael Greiner 05:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Helpme Request

{{helpme}}

I have just added some new content to the article on the Essendon Football Club. At [[7]] there is a word "Dreadnought". I am apprehensive that this acurately cited word will be inappropriately "corrected" to Dreadnaught by bots or other editors. I am aware that there is a way that one can lock in foreign spellings of otherwise English words, although I don't know exactly how to do it. Is there a way to ensure that the word "Dreadnought" remains there as it is?? (The reason for asking is that I assume that bots would not recognize the (sic) that follows the word). Thanks Lindsay658 (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the (sic) should be recognised. Spelling-correction bots all have to have manual operators who look for that sort of thing. --ais523 19:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Finals systems

Why are you putting See Also links to final systems articles on season articles that didn't use those finals systems? eg. 2004 AFL season. Remy B (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your query. In part, your question your question exemplifies the issue at hand.
It is obvious that there is much to the VFL and he AFL that is obscure to those who operate from a 2008 POV (BTW, I am not suggesting for a moment that you are such a person).
The principal reason for placing the links on what are, effectively a season-record page and, also, what is effectively a Grand Final record page -- for both of which entities, the aner in which thehome-and-away series reflect upon the finals, as well as the manner in which the Finals competition is constituted, conducted, and appraised, is critical to any understanding of the data presented in each article -- is that (collectively) these are the pages that most of the readers first go to in order to find out something about particular AFL and VFL Finals.
Particularly, in my view, at least for the uninformed reader, it is imperative that they have access to this information about the previous systems immediately available to them with, so to speak, a "minimum of fuss" -- especially because, over the years, many horrid injustices have occurred due to the structure of the various finals systems available to them (or gross misunderstandings in, say, 2008, due to ignorance of past facts (e.g., such as the fact that the Collingwood four premierships in a row would never have happened if Collingwood had not been able to "challenge" other teams).
In closing, you should note that the "See also" list grows as the years advance from 1897; viz., as there is an accumulated past history of former systems.
By the way, even if you fiercely objected to my view (which I am sure you do not) you must honestly admit that, prior to my work today, it has never ever been at all clear on any of these "season pages" precisely which system the home-and-away season was played under, and, even worse, the system the finals were played under.
Finally, I am doing this so that (a) any relatively uninformed reader that might believe that the finals in the year ABCD (e.g., 2004) were conducted in precisely the same way as they were in 1897 or vice versa (i.e., suddenly becoming aware that not all premierships are equal) has somewhere to go to find out more, (b) that a reasonably informed reader can be reminded that there have been other systems, and be directed to where they can go to find out more, and (c) for the highly informed reader, to allow them to get to where they need to go, again with a "minimum of fuss".
Hope that makes things clear to you. Thanks for your query. Lindsay658 (talk) 03:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
As a further thought, I am considering going through each "season page" and specifying precisely which system was used in that particular years.Any thoughts on that as well? Lindsay658 (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it is a great idea to mention the finals system of the season in question, and to link to an article about it. However I disagree entirely with putting links to other finals systems in the season articles. The 2004 AFL season article (for example) is only for information about the AFL season of 2004. It is not appropriate to use the article as a marketing tool for other articles that you personally don't think get enough attention because of the lower interest people have in articles about older topics. I realise your frustration that articles about older topics get less attention, but that is just the sum of the contributions made to Wikipedia so far. It is only natural that people are more likely to add information that is more recent in their memories than topics that may even be before their time. The appropriate way to counter this "2008 POV" is to contribute more to older articles. I don't think it is appropriate to strike the balance by using popular articles as an advertisement-of-sorts for less popular articles. Please keep the season articles to information specific to that season year. Thanks. Remy B (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Is my face red!! I was simply endeavouring to make it easier for people who are not expert web-surfers, were not professional historians, and who had little knowledge of where to go (especially within Wiki), in order to find out something more about the AFL and its history. Those who may have been less than fully informed about the history of current AFL conventions really do need to have access to information (and the only way they can "have access to" something that is currently unknown to them is through links) that I considered relevant — that they may not otherwise have been aware existed. Now I am accused of "advertising", within "popular articles", the existence of "less popular articles"!! I am astounded!! I must take some time to mull over this astounding accusation, and the lack of understanding that it represents. (I'm sure that it is more gently meant than it has come across to me) However, I have enough experience of such things to recognize that you may, given the sort of world that we have today in relation to the artificial manipulation of search engine results, have experienced some initial trepidation in relation to this additional information appearing at the foot of an article about, say, the 2007 season. I believe that with some quiet reflection you may come share my view that whilst it certainly is important to present "core information" front-and-centre, so to speak, the achieving of that goal certainly does not warrant the attitude that you are displaying towards the presentation of links (yes, "links", not convoluted paragraph after convoluted paragraph) that are directly concerned with important "peripheral" matters. I suggest, that if you want to do something about something that really is totally irrelevant to a "season page", then please do something to the completely irrelevant "peacock", "weasel" and completely irrelevant to a season-record page section at the head of 2001 AFL season. Anyway, I too, will give some thought to your comments. However, in the interim, I ask you to leave the links in place at the moment. For it really would take a long time to replace them once again. From my training and my experience, I believe that all of this work must be driven by a devotion to the production of the best quality of information transfer, and that this best quality information transfer is measured by the extent to which a reader is, to use the terms of Eleanor Rosch, confronted with the transferral of "the most information with the least cognitive effort". Anyway, I will think on your comments, and "Thanks" for taking the time to make them. However, in my case, I hope that you realize that your accusation of "advertising" in my case is just a little too "precious", and far too aggressively territorial about your own work when there is, indeed, no reason to chastise someone with a wider, broader, longer, deeper, and far more global perspective, who has done nothing but embellish your work in a positive way. Best to you.Lindsay658 (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I have to admit I find it amusing how dramatically you are interpreting my very simple point. All I am saying is that See Also links in articles are for further information on that specific article (eg. the AFL season of 2004). If a finals system is not used in an AFL season, then it is not appropriate to link to it from that AFL season article because it is not directly relevant to the topic at hand. That's it. (Thanks for pointing out the 2001 AFL season spiel. I have removed it.) Remy B (talk) 07:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I have carefully considered your argument. You are 100% correct. However, please leave the links in place. Within the next week I will have removed them all and, in their place, as agreed, I will place something within each "season page" article that identifies the finals system used in that year. I will then remove the links from each page, once the amendments have been made. Best to you. Lindsay658 (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Richmond Football Club - "Wasps" nickname

Whilst one or two VFL/AFL history texts list this nickname, its historical use is highly disputed and not supported by the club itself. To quote Rhett Bartlett of the RFC Historical Committee "... the club at no point identifies that Richmond were known as the Wasps in early years. Whilst there was a one off passing reference to Richmond players looking like 'wasps' it was in no sense a nickname provided to them". Given this, you may like to reverse that entry. Cheers. Lintornterry (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Violinist

Thanks so much for the additional info and wikification of that thought experiment page! Pax, ~JCY2K THanks. Lindsay658 (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response to lead time question

Lindsay658,

First of all, let me say thank you for you interest in the recent edits I made. Before I answer your question, let me give you a little information on me so you know my background.

I just graduated from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro with a bachelors degree in information systems (it is technically listed as a B.S. in business with a concentration is I.S. - blah blah blah). At UNCG, the department that heads I.S. is called the Department of Information Systems and Supply Chain Management. Therefore, anyone concentrating in I.S. or S.C.M. takes many classes in both fields. In addition to the normal classes of programming, networking, databases, etc. I also took classes in operations management and project management.

After reading the comment you left on my talk page, I looked over my notes and books from those classes. Unfortunately, the only mention I have of lead time deals with inventory management. More specifically, the notes I have define lead time as the difference between when inventory (or materials) are ordered and when they arrive. The inventory specialist has to determine what is the lowest acceptable amount of inventory that the business can have (i.e. five widgets) and determine a reorder point so that the inventory does not fall below that point (i.e. reorder when inventory falls to ten widgets).

I have the feeling that this will not help you much. If I find something about lead time that I can reference, I will not hesitate to post it.

Thanks again, Dennis Thanks. Lindsay658 (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neil Sachse

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Neil Sachse, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Neil Sasche. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1898 VFL Grand Final

I've converted direct links to <ref></ref> format. Note that links to wikipedia should be explict and that they are not accepted as reliable sources in themseleves.--Grahame (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)