User talk:Maury Markowitz/Archives/2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Stop delete tags

I will report you to the editors for you deletion tags. The Pages have ref. to NY Times, CBS News and the Washington post. These refs are needed. Thank you for noting the missing pardon ref. it has been added. A presidential pardon is notable. If your name is listed in a report by Kenneth Starr and the Washington Post page A01 notability has been met. Telecine Guy 00:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Be my guest, go ahead and report it to the "editors". BTW, new comments go at the bottom of the page. Maury (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


T:DYK.

Updated DYK query On January 2, 2002, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 15 cm sFH 18, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Happy new year, and congratulations! · AndonicO Talk 12:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Coatrack articles on Whitewater

Hi, I saw you revived the prod on Stephen Smith (Whitewater), which I originally put on. I'm concerned about a number of possible WP:COATRACK articles on Whitewater figures that User:Telecineguy has created; you can see them under Category:Whitewater figures, including Eugene Fitzhugh, John Haley, Larry Kuca, John Latham (Whitewater), Charles Matthews (Whitewater), Robert W. Palmer, William J. Marks Sr., and possibly others in different categories such as Neal Ainley. You're an admin, do you think Wikipedia is exposed on WP:BLP grounds on these? I originally broached the issue about these last year in Category talk:Clinton administration controversies, but maybe I should have been more pro-active. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

BLP is over-applied, but these articles mostly fail COAT. Thanks for the heads-up, I'm PRODing them as I go. Maury (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
User:Telecineguy took off all the PRODs. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Updated DYK query On 11 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Adolf Busemann, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Archtransit (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I said the prod was invalid because it was contested, not because it was a COATRACK (which, you're right, is a perfectly good reason to prod an article). A prod contested for any reason other than vandalism or an edit from a banned user cannot be reinstated, regardless of whether it addressed the issue. I tried to edit the article to remove the coatrack-y stuff, it seems like the guy may be notable for his political capacity during Clinton's governorship, and did receive significant press coverage for the Whitewater stuff, though that might be a case of WP:BLP1E. If you think the article still fails coatrack, feel free to nominate it at AFD. You may wish to nominate all of them together, as I see above there are several. Rigadoun (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

MoRsE medal

The
MoRsE
medal
Image:Bronze_medal_2_yellow.jpg in Bronze with a yellow ribbon has been awarded
Maury Markowitz
on 18 January 2008
for the work with the article
Berlin Blockade

Great work on the Berlin Blockade article! I will award you a MoRsE medal for your efforts! --MoRsE (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Maury (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Avro Tutor

I guess using the above as a disambig page would by the DS answer... happy to go with whatever you want though Winstonwolfe (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

CF-105

Maury, our old "friend" User:Opuscalgary appears to be back. An IP, User:70.73.172.15, began editiing Opus's old comments on the Talk:CF-105 Arrow page. After I reverted the IP's edits for changing another user's comments, he lambasted me for "pointless edit warring", "trolling", "degrading Wikipeida", and "pointless insult wars", and claimed that he was editing his own comments. It sure didn't take much at all for the "old Opus" to show out again! Can you look into this? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Consider it done! Maury (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

T:DYK.

Updated DYK query On 9 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lockheed J37, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations. · AndonicO Hail! 01:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Updated DYK query On 10 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Avro Chinook, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sock in our midst

Maury, the gentleman who tried to scare you away from participating in the article on homeopathy and memory of water has become blocked indefinately due to having several socks [1]. By the way, one of the world's leading water experts, Martin Chaplin has begun editing on the memory of water page. Your wisdom could add to the mix. Dana Ullman Talk 01:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the updates! BTW, I have no expertise in this topic whatsoever, merely a passing interest due to the Q&Q episode, which if I remember correctly, I was listening to in the car on the way back from university for holidays. Maury (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:He 113.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:He 113.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Κaiba 04:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hs 129B-3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hs 129B-3.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Κaiba 04:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. Saying simply 'it is fair use for this article' is not a satisfactory rationale and the tag will continue to be readded until one is written which is satisfactory with WP:NFCC. — Κaiba 18:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Tell you what, I'll even spare you the time reading the entire page and take out the excerpt I wanted you to read

A well-written use rationale must explain how the use of this media meets the Non-free content criteria and should state:

  • What proportion of the copyrighted work is used and to what degree does it compete with the copyright holder's usage? For example, if the image is a photograph or logo, the entire work is likely being used. A screenshot that reveals the most important discovery of a documentary or the ending of a movie, for example, though a very small portion of the work, may disproportionately compete with the copyright holder's use. In the case of a music sample, the length should be no longer than 10 percent of the song's original length or 30 seconds, whichever is shorter.
  • If applicable, has the resolution been reduced from the original? In the case of music samples, has the quality been reduced from the original?
  • What purpose does the image serve in the article? If applicable:
    • Is the image a logo, photograph, or box art for the main subject of the article?
    • Is the image being used as the primary means of visual identification of the subject or topic? (e.g., a corporate logo or the box art of a DVD)
    • Does it illustrate the topic of the article? (e.g., a screen shot from a movie)
    • Is it used for commentary on a particular topic? How?
  • To what degree is the image replaceable by a free content image?
    • If the image is a screenshot of a movie that for an article about the movie, or a corporate logo, there is obviously no such thing as a "free" version of it - all of the resources in the world could not produce one. If, on the other hand, the image is a photograph, the image is more easily replaced, even if Wikipedians may lack the resources to create a replacement.
  • Any other information necessary to assist others in determining whether the use of this image qualifies for fair use.

Please provide that for these images, thanks. — Κaiba 18:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the current tag contains more than enough information to fulfill the two criterion in the article you link to. The current body clearly explains that it does not infringe on the copyright holder's rights, because the aircraft no longer exists. It also states that it is free use within articles on that aircraft.
So please, can you be more specific about exactly what it is that is lacking? Maury (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you talking about {{fairuse}}? The boilerplate templates are not a rationale. In fact, that tag says at the bottom: To the uploader: This tag is not a sufficient claim of fair use. You must also include the source of the work, all available copyright information, and a detailed fair use rationale. Use something like {{Non-free use rationale}} to make a rationale. See the image Image:White goddess.JPG for an example of a rationale. Use Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline as a guide if your still having trouble. — Κaiba 20:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Data General Super Nova.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Data General Super Nova.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Me 410-A1.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Me 410-A1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:R4M.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:R4M.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Me 410 with BK50.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Me 410 with BK50.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Prograph_cpx_logo.PNG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Prograph_cpx_logo.PNG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

National Ignition Facility

This article was put on hold one week ago, and it might be failed tomorrow unless some productive effort is directed towards improving it. I was hoping you might be want to the person who does that. Cheers! Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 11:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Me 410 with BK50.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Me 410 with BK50.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:R4M.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:R4M.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is not right

An image I uploaded some time in the distant past was tagged, but yourself IIRC, as having no source or something or other. Big boilerplate messages all over my user talk page. Then OrphanBot saw the tag and removed it from the article. More big boilerplate all over my userpage. Now that it's orphaned, it can be more speedily deleted, because orphans are less important.

No no no no no!

Someone fix this.

Maury (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you want me to do? If you can provide source information then I can undelete the images. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't care if the message is deleted or not, what I don't want is different policies "ganging up" to reduce the amount of time one has to fix the problem, while at the same time spamming my user page. Maury (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Hs 129B-3.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Hs 129B-3.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

dyk

Updated DYK query On 3 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rolls-Royce Conway, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- one for derby? Victuallers (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

My name is nowhere

This is coming back a bad link. Maybe you've got a more recent one? Also, for my own interest, have you got a site with pix of his helical radial? I'd love to see it. (Or is that the Bristol Mercury?) Trekphiler (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the Mercury is definitely not the helical one, although I've never come across a picture of it. I think it looked a lot like the US "corncob" engine, Pratt & Whitney R-4360. As to the link, which page is that from? I know the site was operational a little while ago, so maybe they just changed the link format or something. Maury (talk) 13:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for not mentioning the page I found the dead link. I'd guess it was Roy Fedden‎ or one of the Spit variant pages. If you do find the bios, put a note up on the talk page for anybody interested; I'm not such a specialist I'd want (or need) a special notice. (Yeah, let's not bankrupt the maker of, what, the most expensive car in the world? Take all the profit out of 'em, I guess.) Thanks, tho. Trekphiler (talk) 02:22 & 02:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Hs 129B-3.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Hs 129B-3.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

re:Help please

I replied at my talk page, check back there for updates and replies. Regards, — Κaiba 16:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please provide a website that you got the image from? — Κaiba 13:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It was many years ago, I no longer remember. Maury (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you please look for it? We can manage without it for a while, but having the website might be more helpful. — Κaiba 14:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on rotary engines?

Hi Maury - I'd love to hear your thoughts on the best way to organise our content on rotary engines... there's a discussion taking place at WT:AIR. I'm sure you're more than aware of the confusion the term causes! --Rlandmann (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Heat engines

Hey, my pleasure. I've just tweaked a little more -- are three lines what you intend in the "Engine types" section? Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

BBC's and ABC's 20/20 Homeopathy Test was Junk Science

I just saw an old post of yours from March 2007 where you thought the BBC's study of homeopathy was different from 20/20's study.[2]. To clarify, Ennis assumed (incorrectly) that the Horizon experiment was a replication of her study, until over a year later when I obtained the protocol from the experimenter, Wayne Turnbull. I have now posted the protocol that he used [3]. I discovered this serious problem just before the 20/20 program was going to begin their study. This information shocked the 20/20 producer, but typical of tv, he decided that the "show must go on." Unlike the BBC that specifically stated that their test was a "repeat" of Ennis' work, the 20/20 show didn't make that claim (wisely). They instead asserted that "their" experts said that the study was well-designed and well-controlled, though they didn't mention that none of their experts had any experience with basophil research, let alone homeopathic research (whoops). Therefore, junk science became junk journalism. If you have any more thoughts here, let's talk. This is quite an interesting and amazing story. Dana Ullman Talk 06:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your concern. In order to replicate an experiment, one does not have to use identical setups. In fact, it's much better from a scientific standpoint if the systems employed are different. The only real concern is to ensure that the experiments, in the end, measure the same thing. If two different experimental series come to the same conclusion, that's far more convincing than when a single experiment comes to the same conclusion that it did before. Ennis commented on several steps of the procedure, but I don't see any sort of claim that the experimental concept is invalid. To the contrary, she clearly stated I can not say what impact they would have had as I have not tested out his protocol.".
The article does state this, it seems balanced in this respect to me, but maybe you can be more specific as to your concerns?
Maury (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Wait, I DO see the problem. Before I agree to an addition though, I have one question: did Ennis, as the Horizon transcript implies, sign off on the testing procedure? Unless we have positive evidence to the contrary, I have to accept the quoted transcript, and if the procedure was agreed to before it was run, then her complaints do not appear to be germain. Maury (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
When I talked with Ennis, she had assumed that the BBC had repeated her same protocol and was surprised (very surprised) that Wayne Turnbull had created a dramatically different protocol. Her email to me asserted that Turnbull obviously had little experience with research basophils, and further, he used certain chemicals that would kill the basophils before the homeopathic doses of histamine or the control treatment could be provided. She also described several other problems. Neither she or I doubt that the study was "well controlled" and "well conducted" (as per the experimenter's protocol), but our concern is on the protocol that he developed. For the record, Turnbull has no history of published research. As to your question whether Ennis "signed off" on this experiment, no one has ever said or suggested that she did. Ultimately, when "reality television" meets "science" we get junk science and junk journalism (though this is a pity because it didn't have to be this way) Dana Ullman Talk 02:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Having read over an extensive set of documents on the 'web, I think I have a good overall understanding of the situation. Yes, I did misunderstand the connection between Ennis, Turnbull, Horizon and 20/20.
To recap, Ennis was not involved in the Horizon tests. This was effectively between Milgrom and Randy. They, and the other parties, agreed to a test protocol and followed it as outlined. Then, when the experiment failed, Milgrom complains about the protocol. As Turnbull pointed out, Milgrom, Treuherz and Ullman were all physically present when the experiment was being carried out, and were actively encouraged to bring up any complaints. They didn't. After the fact Milgrom comes up with several complaints, mostly an inaccurate weighing. Turnbull points out that since the dilutions were so high that it doesn't make a difference if the initial weight was off, one way or the other there is zero histamine left in the vial. Milgrom's next letter I characterize as a personal attack on Turnbull's experimental capabilities, but again, he had every chance to select another person to do the experiment before it was carried out. Again, he didn't. Sounds like sour grapes to me. Or a bruised ego.
What I do not completely understand is the difference between the 20/20 experimental run and the Horizon (BBC) one. I had initially thought they were one and the same, but I Milgrom implies this is not the case. Perhaps you can point me to documents that would better explain this?
Maury (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
First, I appreciate your efforts to try to understand what happened. Let me clarify a couple of things. The protocol that was used by Horizon and 20/20 was the same. No one involved in homeopathy was present during the Horizon experiment. Milgrom and Treherz were there for the 20/20 study (Ullman was not). We all had assumed that they were following Ennis' study (sadly, we had "good faith"). However, Ennis and I were not sent the protocol until after the study was conducted (but before the results were announced). Before the results were announced, I formally complained to the 20/20 producer that Wayne Turnbull designed and conducted the "wrong" experiment. The 20/20 show specifically said that I questioned the protocol, though they also said that "their experts" (none of whom had any experience in basophil research!) considered the study to be "well-designed" and "well-conducted" (its blinding was good, but most of the specific steps in the study are riddled with problems, as Ennis notes). Get it now? Let me know if you have any other good questions... Dana Ullman Talk 15:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, well I think all of this suggests the reference to Ennis's comments needs to go back into the article ASAP. Would you like me to do this, or would you prefer to do it yourself?
But your post above does lead to one more question. If the test series used in the two shows was identical, and the one carried out for Horizon was signed off on by several prominent homeopathic practitioners, then why is it you refer to the 20/20 experiment as "junk science". Please understand the context here: you have not described the original Horizon experiment in this way, but here you have described the two experiments as being similar. I am confused on your position here.
Maury (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[Maury], I would prefer if you made these changes. There are some people who revert almost anything I do, despite my protests and concerns. As for the BBC study, Ennis and no one who I know "signed off" on this experiment. When I wrote Nathan Williams, the producer of the BBC's Horizon program, and told him that Turnbull did a different and seriously flawed study, he insisted that it was the same as Ennis' (the Horizon progream described it as a "repeat" of Ennis work). However, when I asked him if he had actually seen and compared the protocols, he didn't respond and hasn't responded to my subsequent emails. The previous links to Ennis' email and to Turnbull's protocol (used in both BBC's and 20/20 experiment) were previously provided. Please note that some editors assert that my site is not RS. However, the words are Ennis are RS, and further, the link to Professor Martin Chaplin's site is a good 3rd party confirmation [4] Dana Ullman Talk 18:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There is also the fact that Dana is banned from editing this article. Homeopathy related alticles such as water memory are also under a special probation at the moment --DrEightyEight (talk)
Note the high-level chutzpah here. Shortly after this comment above was made, User:DrEightEight was found to have multiple sockpuppets. I may have been restricted from editing homeopathy articles temporarily, but Dr88 is no longer with us. DanaUllmanTalk 15:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, well in that case I think I'll choose to stay away too. Maury (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm actually relatively new to wikipedia. I edited less than a handful of times before the end of November 2007. Being green to wiki, I made some errors and was blocked. I got unblocked, with the aid of a mentor LaraLove, but am temporarily not allowed to edit articles. Big deal. Please note that I am transparent--like yourself, I use my real name. Because I am known to be knowledgeable about homeopathy (having written chapters on this subject in 3 medical textbooks, including pain management, oncology, and veterinary medicine, and having written several books and innumerable articles on the subject). Being transparent and due to the contentious atmosphere in homeopathic article here, I was successfully targeted. Despite making some errors, I have some important contributions to make on wikipedia, and I have collaborated with various editors to improve the quality of various article. You seem to have read several of the references that I have provided, and I encourage you to review a good 3rd party source: the website of Martin Chaplin, professor of water science at London South Bank London University at: [5]. Although articles on homeopathy are under probation, we need (!) a moderating voice, an outsider, to look at issues and shed new light. You can do that. One should not be scared away; one simply has to be respectful, thoughtful, NPOV, RS, and V. You may be a rare one who can do this...Dana Ullman Talk 04:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It is true that the homeopathy articles are presently on probation, and this is why a 3rd party or outsider's wisdom is needed and can provide some special insights. Hope you'll reconsider. The implications of the BBC's and ABC-TV's "tv science" are significant...and quite fascinating. Even though tv had a great opportunity to merge "reality television" and "science," but they conducted a verifiable junk science study, thereby creating junk journalism. See for yourself. Dana Ullman Talk 07:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


Updated DYK query On 2 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article BTA-6, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Archtransit (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Geared turbofan

Maury, wouldn't most of this info that you added to Pratt & Whitney Geared Turbofan be a better fit at geared turbofan. It seems like too much explanation for an type article to me. Just asking, as the info tht was there is actually from the geared turbofan section, where I copied it from! Just asking, thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought about that, but it seemed to greatly expand the fan article. Additionally, the only way you could get context in the P&W article would be to read the entire fan article from top to bottom. Yes, redundant. Maury (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

NK-321

I reverted your edit, but without any malice. I just need to know what military engine is currently bigger, so I can link there from the article.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't see the "kg". Might want to fix the spelling though. Maury (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
That's OK then. I was trying to work out what kind of military aircraft would need a more powerful engine 8-)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Conway 707

Thanks for the reply, happy with your ref I think it probably needs a ref in the article (although just the book would probably do) as everybody will assume it was for BOAC and keep questioning the entry. MilborneOne (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Laurence Olivier

Thanks for your note. Unfortunately, I can't take credit for improvements to the page. I think it's been the efforts of several different editors. When we undertook the effort to prioritize the top 100 articles in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers work group, we took a lot of things into consideration during the process to come up with our list. Relative prominence over a period of time, contributions made, ground-breaking work, awards won, critical acclaim, as well as articles that could be raised in quality, all of which tried to take into consideration individuals representative of the English speaking world. Then we voted, bartered and bargained until we came up with a list that was more or less satisfactory to everyone involved. Hopefully, the categorization will encourage involved editors on the individual pages to keep improving the article. If you'd like to see the present list (barring any odd changes someone might try and slip through - like James Brown the singer being a top film group priority !?!), you can see it at here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I can't say I know much about the "golden age", but I have to say the articles were extremely good in general. I had no idea about Pickford's power in Hollywood for instance, and found the story of UA really fascinating. The only exception was Rita Heyworth, which seems really underdeveloped IMHO, but at least some of that appears due to the "fight" over that one biography. Maury (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Omar Khadr

Hi, I think I've dealt with your issues, removing a few images and reducing sizes and changing the layout to prevent whitespace breaks. Can you let me know at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Omar Khadr if you feel there is any other aspects preventing a support vote? Thanks! Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 14:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Frank Whittle

No problem at all Maury, these things happen! It's an interesting topic, and perhaps with a bit of tidying and the addition of some inline cites it might be worth nominating for a GA. --Red Sunset 21:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed your conversation with Ahunt above: in my (limited) experience inline cites tend to be a big issue with most GA and FA reviewers! --Red Sunset 21:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
In my experience it tends to be the only issue. I have a sneaking suspicion no one actually reads the articles... I'm becoming grumpy in my old age. Maury (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not alone after all! --Red Sunset 22:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
LOL! Actually, I guess that should be _sigh_. C'est la vie, I'm here to write, not collect stars! Maury (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)