User talk:Dpbsmith

Note: I will usually reply to your messages here, not on your own Talk page.

See also:

• User talk:Dpbsmith/Archive08 -- most recent
• User talk:Dpbsmith/Archive07
• User talk:Dpbsmith/Archive06
• User talk:Dpbsmith/Archive05
• User talk:Dpbsmith/Archive04
• User talk:Dpbsmith/archive03
• User talk:Dpbsmith/archive02
• User talk:Dpbsmith/archive01

Hello I am a new user and have been working (logged or not) on Antonio Meucci's and Alexander Graham Bell's page. I apologise for not having answered to your comments in the history page but it took me some time before I learnt some wiki devices. I am not a telecommunication expert, just an Italian curious to know the "truth" if there is any about Antonio Meucci's priority. I'm actually being a little disappointed because up to now I found evidence brought only by researcher Basilio Catania (everybody else is just ---lazily? --- following his statements). Catania's work I have been able to read on the internet is a summary of research done in 16 years, so Catania is comprehensibly cutting up some information. What I am trying to discover is whether Catania found evidence of Meucci's work BEFORE his deposition in the trial. Before beginning I was perfectly sure Meucci was the inventor of the telephone, now I see there were at least SIX people working separately!!!!!! O_____o Cheers --S vecchiato 08:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ! Just a few minutes ago I found new evidence. \(^.^)/ C U later (^_^)S vecchiato --S vecchiato 09:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your comment on the list talk page, and it happens to correspond exactly to a guideline that I have already proposed here. Feel free to read it and let me know what you think. Best wishes, AdamBiswanger1 16:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing to inform you, and many others, that an AfD in which you voted delete, List of automobiles that were commercial failures, was already unsucessfully nominated a short time ago, but under a different title. This was not noted in the nomination. Please read the opposing arguments here, and reconsider your vote, because it is important that the opinions of previous voters be considered. Thanks! AdamBiswanger1 23:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naw, I ain't that smart! I know *vaguely* they're called something like that, but I wasn't thinking of it at the time, hehe. Just too lazy to write "them" in full. But now I ought to be able to remember what they're called.... Cheers! Hayford Peirce 01:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the discussion has morphed, but I don't yet have enough WP experience to know where the discussion should be held if not on the AfD page. My vote has already changed to Keep on that page.

I think it's a notable political act, but not a successful coinage. It should be in WP somewhere. The article as it stands seems intended as an attack on Rick Santorum; the prominent formatting of the definition is presumably done to maximize the impact of the statement, and so is a political statement. The article should describe the political act only. I'd be OK with it staying in Savage Love but the comments on the AfD have convinced me that it is a notable enough act to deserve its own page. I don't feel strongly either way on this.

The page moves seem likely to have been done just in order to ensure that a search term of "santorum" leads straight to this page, again for political reasons. That doesn't make the moves wrong, though. WP:DAB seems pretty clear to me; I think most users searching for "santorum" would expect to find the senator, and I'd suggest they be directed to that page. A dab link can take them to the dab page which would lead them to the term. That's the solution I'd propose. Google counts: "Rick Santorum" -fecal = 3.52M, "Rick Santorum" +fecal = 30K.

If you can tell me the right forum to post the above, I'll post there; the AfD seems wrong, since my vote is keep. Should we be requesting an admin to terminate the discussion and repost the content to the talk page? Or is that something I can do, as nominator? The latter seems wrong to me, since I have no special role in the discussion beyond having initiated it. Is there policy that applies here? Mike Christie 23:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with you on all points. I don't know what to suggest about the right forum. What's really going to happen is that the closing admin will close it as "keep" or as "no consensus," the article will be kept, and there will likely develop some kind of edit war with both sides claiming support from the AfD. Shrug. The main thing is to develop as clear a consensus as possible in the AfD, make sure that the AfD discussion gets copied to the Talk page if the admin doesn't do it, and take it from there. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. I'm going to post the Google counts; that at least seems useful info for the closing admin's decision. Mike Christie 23:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia_talk:List_guideline#Criteria Thanks! --Anthony Krupp 00:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belhaven Hill School

I'm trying to shift the focus of the schools debates from the various "stuck record" arguments that have bogged editors down for so long onto the finding, reading, citing, and evaluation of sources, using the new WP:SCHOOL criteria to do this in the same way that the WP:CORP did this for companies and products. As an editor who has done that very thing in the past, please consider helping by setting an example. Please independently consider the topic at hand from the perspective of locating and evaluating (in terms of its provenance and depth) the source material on the subject, and see what conclusions you come to. Uncle G 10:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I respect what you've been doing in this and other AfD's. I'm not quite sure what to do here. So I want to chat a bit before expressing any opinion in the AfD.

First, I simply don't agree with the proposed WP:SCHOOL. I think it sets the bar much too low because of the combination of requiring the school to pass any single criterion together with some very loose criteria. As I read the proposal, a school that gets "regular coverage in local media (such as complete stories about a school's athletic program)" meets the criterion. Given even a modicum of creative interpretation I don't see how any school could fail to meet WP:SCHOOL.

Second, I don't believe the article in its present form actually does meet WP:SCHOOL, although you apparently think it does. I've seen in the past arguments that a particular school is "notable" because some routine government evaluation gives it a high rating; it usually turns out that a goodly percentage of schools get the rating and that it just means "ordinary good school."

I really wish you had asked me to "set a good example" on an article that happened to be about a patently notable primary school that patently had had nontrivial published sources... as opposed to an arguably notable primary school that arguably has sources that arguably might just barely satisfy the easiest-to-meet criterion of a very easy-to-meet proposal

But notable primary schools are few and far between... and frankly, they're not controversial, as mainstream Wikipedians would not be likely to nominate them for deletion.

Holding off on expressing an opinion in the discussion until I hear from you... Dpbsmith (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dpbsmith. Please see my reply to you at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Santorum. Your Google SafeSearch filter was turned on. I've included instructions for seeing the unfiltered results over at the AfD page. — Coelacan | talk 23:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read some stuff at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, and I was most impressed with the range of citations you provided covering the topic of "the sky is blue". Do you have that permanently stored somewhere as an example? I think many people would find it very instructive. Carcharoth 20:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newsweek decided to generate a list of New Ivies, which, lo and behold, now has an article up. As this is your area of interest, if not expertise, I was wondering what you thought about the merit of this list having an article. JDoorjam Talk 02:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again! Could I get your opinion of whether, say, an old Time Magazine cover of Joan Baez is permitted in the Joan Baez article or not? I put one in several months ago. Now an officious busybody is going around removing images from various articles. I went to his user-talk page and found the following dialogue between him (her?) and another upset editor. I'll paste it in below. And I'd greatly appreciate your thoughts on this subject -- it seems to me that there are *gazillions* of mag. covers being used and no one else seems to object as long as the pertinent copyright info is given, along with the appropriate fair-use tag.... Many thanks! Hayford Peirce 21:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

xxRemoval of imagesxx Please stop removing images from articles, as you did with Jenny Lynn, Raye Hollitt, Guy Lafleur, and others. Using images of book and magazine covers is acceptable under WP:Fair use. fbb_fan 00:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:Fair use and the policy described in the copyright tag for those images more carefully. As my edit summaries accurately quoted, "It is not acceptable to use images with this tag in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover, unless used directly in connection with the publication of this image." In each case you cited, the article use did not conform to this requirement. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 19:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:FU and note that it is in fact a guideline, not a policy. This is clearly stated at the top of the page. fbb_fan 01:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:FU more carefully. The template you mention refers only to sections 1-4 of the page. Sections 5-8 are formal Wikipedia policy. They are labelled as formal policy by the template preceding section 5. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 16:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and I believe the section you are citing as the reason for removing images is not in the section marked as "policy".

Incidentally, since you seem to be quite a stickler for policy and such, please note the following from WP:SIG: Signatures that obscure your account name to the casual reader may be seen as disruptive. fbb_fan 23:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Ivies has been recommended for deletion, click here —ExplorerCDT 06:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re. the user who said he was immediately banned- he chose the username Obvioustroll, which is apparently one of his normal online usernames, but per our guidelines, is blockworthy. Ral315 (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I thought it was black & white. Most film entries from this time on Wikipedia state if they were done in Technicolour, hence why I added the B&W category. - User:Lugnuts

I agree that facts should be cited. However, articles can clog with references and when something does not seem controversial, I question why a cite is necessary. Rkevins82 15:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the verifiability policy, one of Wikipedia's core policies, says so.

The words of the policy are "Articles should cite these sources whenever possible." Whenever possible; not, "when the material does not seem controversial." In this case, supplying a citation was not only possible but easy.

The reason behind the policy is that it is the only way for a reader to judge the reliability of facts in Wikipedia. The alternative would be limit Wikipedia editors to people with known identities and credentials. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - sometimes when I tag things people give page-long explanations of why something is true when all they needed to do was just put the cite in :). RN 16:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Which, for the record, I did). Dpbsmith (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of sock puppetry have been made against some of the accounts that have edited the Center for Science in the Public Interest page. I have instigated the wiki process for handling such allegations. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/David Justin. As someone who has contributed to the CSPI page, please add your views to the Comments section. You have up to 10 days to make comments on the allegation. Nunquam Dormio 19:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

some things just won't go away... for example: New Ivies Cornell Rockey 15:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per your suggestion, I added a short "Other Ivies" entry under Ivy League. I welcome your thoughts. -Joshua

The deleted reference to UCI aspiring to become a flagship campus was replaced, as it is a stated goal of the Strategy for Academic Development, UCI's long-range development plan. This statement is part of the charge to planning committee members and may also be found throughout the PDF report. These websites have been cited.

While the wording of the deleted reference might require slight revision, UCB and UCLA are generally known as flagship UC campuses (which UCI and UCSD have explicitly stated they aspire to become). Therefore, the context in which the term "flagship" is used in the Strategy for Academic Development, while having the formal origin which you cited, also can have an informal application among those unfamiliar with California higher education history. It also has relevance to the discussion of UCI's future growth, since its objective is to develop resources commensurate to UCB and UCLA. Fueltheburn 20:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded it, putting "flagship campus" in quotation marks, because I still believe this is not the standard usage of the term, and adding the specific reference you give above. As for Berkeley and UCLA: do you have a reference for UCLA being called "a flagship campus?" Dpbsmith (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Lux: See WP:MOS#Scientific style. "For units of measure, use SI units as the main units in science articles, unless there are compelling historical or pragmatic reasons not to do so"--Srleffler 14:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Fine, but let's give both units. Just for the record, I've been "thinking metric" since the 1960s... but I live, alas, in a U. S. Customary world. I'll make the change if you haven't already. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, you've done it. Don't worry, I'm not going to revert-war. It will be interesting to see whether Bobblewik or someone else starts fussing around changing it to 30.48 cm or 0.984 feet or changing "candle" to "candela..." Dpbsmith (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you take a look at the above, sigh John Holmes (actor). Some dingbat is cutting out large sections of it because he objects to the content, which might shock a 7-year-old. I've reverted a couple of times but I'm too tired to get into a revert war with a crazy. Could you maybe revert to the original and then put a block, or semi-block, on it? Or, of course, whatever other appropriate action you deem fitting. I remember a couple of years ago on the Discussion page of, I think, "Pornography" there were endless millions of words written about Wiki censorship, or lack of it, viewership, children, etc. etc. Eventually the forces of censorship were outgunned, but I don't want to go through all of this again on the Holmes page, if possible. Many thanks.... Hayford Peirce 17:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I won't try to edit this while I'm at work, and I may not have time tonight, but I'll take a look. The longstanding policy you're probably looking for is Wikipedia is not censored. The exact wording of that section has changed from time to time but the gist never has, and there's strong consensus for it. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good enough. I'll try reverting it one more time, with a Wikipedia is not censored note on the Discussion page and one on the other guy's page. While I was writing my last note to you, he posted a message on my page calling me and Jimmie Wales Porn Peddlers, hehe.... Hayford Peirce 19:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I looked at your talk page to see whether he'd tried to engage you in any discussion... and I left a note on his talk page pointing out that his remark on your talk page was verging on a personal attack. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just saw it about 5 seconds ago -- many thanks! Hayford Peirce 19:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming I'm a guy is like assuming censorship is a bad thing!

I don't think I assumed that. It was Hayford Peirce that referred to you as a "guy." Dpbsmith (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what about Mr. Peirce's reference to me being a "dingbat" and "crazy"(?), doesn't that qualify as a personal attack?

Yes, you're right. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have pre-teen and teenagers who get their sources from school. Apparently Mr. Holmes has become a topic with the pictures from the links. Makes teens more curious than they already are and Jimbo Wales and Mr. Peirce are contributors as well as yourself if you adopt the same view. I do have filters, they don't detect the content from Wikipedia or have a fail safe system. Personally, I am getting a committee together here at the school and ban Wikipedia from the schools because of the content and inform parents. Hopefully this will be a grass roots movement and get Wikipedia out of all decent places. If Jimbo, Peirce and yourself endorse these links and behavior on Wikipedia, someone from a moral background has to intercede. Try showing those links to your local sheriff's kids, your immediate families kids and see if your explanation to me works!2HOT2 21:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)2[reply]

I'm giving you accurate advice about what Wikipedia's policies actually are. Wikipedia does contain many articles on sexual practices, porn stars, etc. It is only a small portion of the total content but it is definitely there. I'm not sure which links bother you but I don't see the difference between a couple of them I checked and the ones that I find from a Google search on "John Holmes."

It is not a bad idea to let people know that Wikipedia does contain content that many think is inappropriate for children, if they are not already aware of this.

I believe you're overreacting but what you do with regard to your local schools is your business. I ask that you be accurate when talking to parents. It is perfectly fair to say that Wikipedia does contain a lot of material that some people find offensive, but I hope you will not suggest that it is an encyclopedia of porn or anything like that. People that want to find indecent material have much better places to go on the Internet than Wikipedia.

Please be aware of the three revert rule. If you and Hayford Peirce continue to revert each other without first discussing the issue on the talk page and trying to get consensus, I am prepared to impose a short block on editing on both of you. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:4790 a philip randolph.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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.

Just so you know, even though you had marked this as GFDL, under US copyright law, statues and other 3D artworks are copyrighted by the artist and photos of them are considered derivative works. Thus, I applied the {{Statue}} fair use tag on your photo, and it can only be used in an article about the artist or about the statue itself. Please see Commons:Derivative works for more information. Regards, howcheng {chat} 03:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I didn't know that. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I was checking the Famous Madisonians list and verifying from the text of the pages of the individuals named on the list, and I removed a couple that were, as you point out, "dubious".

However, I hope you don't think that I was adding names willy nilly. All of the names you indicated require a citation were already on the list and I was verifying by the text of the individual pages of those concerned if they indeed qualified to be included on the list and if they qualified to have a category (i.e. Category:People from Madison, Wisconsin) to that effect.

Anyway, you can count on me to help. I just wanted to make sure there were no misunderstandings. HOT L Baltimore 14:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You were removing dubious entries. That drew my attention to the fact that nobody had bothered to supply citations for any of the other names. Most likely 95% of them are completely valid, but without citations there's no easy way for a reader to know. "citation needed" means "citation needed," not "dubious." Entries that are dubious should be removed (as you did), not tagged. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It will take a lot of work to clean this up and it will proceed slowly. I'll do some of it myself, but of course under WP:V the burden is properly on the editors inserting the name to provide the reference. As you check names, be sure to note whether the linked articles actually give a reference for the individual's connection with Madison. From past experience I expect that maybe 20% of them will. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You left it off on your last Don Paul Afd comment. Morton devonshire 22:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across yet another one of your excellent, sensible comments on the subject of citation, and references, and so on, and I just wanted to say thanks. The (two) citations to "the sky is blue" were much fun, and informative, too. Keep up the fight. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Two citations? The one I saw had much more than that! :-) I'm talking about this one, which I've mentioned here. Hope you don't mind me spreading that example to a wider audience. Carcharoth 00:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. And one of these days I actually do intend to add some of these to the "sky" article... Dpbsmith (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. Stephen Crane's short story The Open Boat opens: "None of them knew the color of the sky." Dpbsmith (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite busy this week, and I do not feel strongly enough about the issue to become engaged in it, but I nevertheless am appreciative that you thought to bring the matter to my attention because I might be interested. Always nice to hear from good editors that I've worked on articles with in the past. Happy editing! —Lowellian (reply) 05:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For one reason and another, I've decided lately to pack up my Wikipedian tools and go ply my wordsmithing skills elsewhere. It's been a great ride — I got five of my own pet projects on the Main Page, after all! — but gravity is setting in, potential energy has changed for kinetic and then degraded into heat, and everything that sounds like fun seems to involve more than a little capital-R Original Research. A few things remain to be wrapped up, but all the places where I figured "I'm the only one who can do this" are basically as good as I can leave them.

It doesn't look like I'll be able to revamp Massachusetts Institute of Technology into a sterling piece of encyclopedic scholarship, but such are the vicissitudes of academic life.

Be seeing you. Anville 18:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No more varied than Wendy's, Arbee's, Boston Market,

Um, yes...except that Arbee's and Boston Market didn't exist during Roy Rogers' heyday, and Wendys was the first of new fast food restaurants offering more than just burgers and fries. Roys was pretty unusual back in the day, it was literally Macdonalds, Arbys, and KFC combined. You would have been hard pressed to find other "fast food" restuarants in the 80s offering so many different types of food. 209.92.136.131 18:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This probably isn't relevant to the subject of this discussion, but I worked at a chain called Carrols in the mid 70's that served the usual burger fare, but also had roast beef sandwiches and fried chicken. (Interestingly, the franchise owners took it "private" in '75 so they could start serving breakfast!) human 00:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arby's certainly existed (I misspelled it). Our article says, 1964. Also Sambo's (1957), Denny's (founded 1953 but not clear from the article when they started to offer a wide menu, and many others that blurred the distinctions between what is now called "casual dining," fast food, and traditional "short-order." McDonald's and Burger King were unusually specialized. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. :)

When you said "Arbee's", I actually thought you were talking about a different chain altogether. 70.20.212.73 12:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was probably mixing up Arby's and Hardee's. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I dunno if you follow that page (John Holmes (actor), but over the last couple of months (at least) dubious info keeps being put into it. Various people revert it, including me a few minutes ago. I then got the following message on my Discussion page:

• The person who keeps editing the John Holmes page to include unverified information about a supposed biography that backs up the unsubstantiated "Annie" story, is a woman who is obsessed with the murders. She has been peddling that story all over the internet but it was thoroughly debunked by a writer and his webmaster. The story is here. There is no biography, there is no truth to the story, and she has a long history of inserting herself into high profile murder cases. Someone needs to get an admin involved, but because I'm not a regular contributor to Wikipedia I'm hoping you'll do it. She will continue creating new identities and reposting the information without end if her prior behavior on other web sites is any indication. Thanks.

• All of the documentation has been collected here. I can provide her current IP address, as of a few days ago, if that helps.

I dunno if this is anything that you can do something about or not. The story is easy enough to revert, but it's annoying that it keeps cropping up. Best, Hayford Peirce 00:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Here's the corrected site for the second citation: http://www.womenwhokill.com/ Hayford Peirce 01:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The story is verifiable as you have just pointed out. Verifiable means documented from other sources, not that it is undisputed and I have mentioned that the story has been disputed by some. Wiki does not stated that your edits must be "without a doubt" 100% agreed- upon-by-all-as-true. If this were so no competing views on any subject would be allowed and competing views should be heard in any unsolved case such as this one. If this is the way things are to be, nothing on the Kennedy assasination/conspiracy should be published here because few can agree on what really happened. People deserve to hear all sides of any issue as long as the information meets Wiki guidelines, which this does/will, and I will add the requested information (dates, page numbers) as soon as I look them up again. If Hayford doesn't like it, I suggest don't read it but don't try to stop others from doing so.

Thank you for the information Dpb, and I will remember to do that from now on. I did not know we had to be that specific as the other information in the article(s) does not have cites, but no biggie, I will add them and edit as necessary to fit the cites. Dbp-Question, how do you cite websites properly on Wiki? WWW adress and date? Thank you. JM

The story is not verifiable. The fact that the story is FALSE is verifiable at the links above. There is absolutely nothing verifying the story is TRUE. MeAgain2006 02:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did not read what I said. No one said the story itself is beyond dispute. Meaning the content of the story. The fact that the story is out there is what is verifiable and the fact that it has appeared in more than one place is verifiable. That is what is required to put it on Wiki with the related cites and sources. We readers can make up their own minds what to believe, we don't need you running interference for us. JM

Anyone can tell a story anywhere, as you well know since you keep telling it. That doesn't create verification. There is nothing verifying the veracity of the original story, and the story only exists where it has been debunked and proven to be false. The original story was a false claim made by a woman who is obsessed with John Holmes and the Wonderland Murders, as you also well know because you look at her in the mirror every morning. You keep adding "It is widely believed" when it is not. You can't cite one person who believes that baloney except you and your sock puppets. Get over it. No one is leaving that story up when they know it isn't true. Get a new hobby. MeAgain2006 03:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to be very clear about this, as I am not in agreement with either of you.

First, yes, User:JMoyer is correct that if indeed "the story is out there," it can and should be in the article if certain conditions are met. First, if contradictory information is also out there and published by a reliable source, then the neutrality policy requires that both points of view be represented in some reasonably balanced way. We can and do leave material up that we "know isn't true;" see Hollow earth, for example, and many articles about fringe science, pseudoscience, and occult topics.

But, second, in order for this material to be in the article it has to meet the verifiability policy and the citation and reliable source guidelines. And "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof," meaning that if User:JMoyer wants this material in the article, and expects uninvolved editors like myself to support its being there, he or she needs to be very punctilious about meeting that policy and guidelines.

Not having looked into it myself, but generally trusting Hayford Peirce's judgement, I think I should say frankly that I strongly doubt that this material has been published by reliable source. But as I say I haven't looked into it. Let's pretend that The New York Times had an article entitled "Internet Breeds Conspiracy Theories" and it happened to mention this and called it nonsense. If someone were to add an accurate description of what the Times said, and gave the date and page number at which the story appeared, that would be a well-sourced, verifiable source for "the story being out there." And the appropriate response by a disbeliever would be. not to remove it, but to add an equally well-sourced statement of the reasons why the story is nonsense.

User:JMoyer, in answer to your question as to how to cite a web page, there are varying ways to do this, but one that is simple and is perfectly adequate is to type the url within a single pair of square brackets, like this: [http://www.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/johnholmes.html] which shows up like this: [1]. It's important that the page be the specific web page that supports the specific fact. Thus, "John Holmes is also the name of a poet[http://www.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/johnholmes.html] is fine, because that page talks about the poet John Holmes. "John Holmes is also the name of a poet [www.uua.org]" is not, because even though the UUA website contains material about the poet John Holmes, just giving the home page of the UUA website does not let you find that material.

There are fancier ways to cite things, such as the template {{cite web}}, but there's no need to worry about them. If the material is properly cited with a reference to a reliable source, you can leave it to other Wikipedians to take care of technical and style details.

The important thing is that you cannot just add a sentence like "It is unknown if he had any further contact with Annie, though it is verified he made several trips to the east coast after his release from prison and before his death." Immediately following that sentence needs to be a citation that is fairly easily checked to a source that says "he made several trips" etc.

Be aware that the "reliable source" guideline is very important, too. Basically, a reliable source cannot be anything like a web forum or a blog or a personal website where anyone can just say anything they like. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. Putting a reference directly into the text immediately after the fact it's supporting is sometimes called an "inline reference." User:JMoyer, that is what you need to start doing. And it was improper of you to label an edit with the edit comment "Several citations/sources added, not original research" when the edit does not contain an inline source citation. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The source of the original story is not reliable or verifiable, which is what I meant although I probably didn't word what I wrote clearly enough to explain that. The biography she cites simply doesn't exist. The story was originally told on a message board by an individual, and it was debunked on a blog. The documentation supporting the debunking, which includes information about her history, server logs documenting her internet activity and the numerous identities created in her attempt to spread the story, and information about a false obituary she filed in a real newspaper in order to get the details into print (which was retracted - couldn't get clippings, but there is someone at the paper who can verify that the obituary was fake) are on the 2nd web site. The one "credible" source verifies this person's history of confessing to high profile murders, Court TV's Crime Library, but it was unrelated to the yarn she is spinning about John Holmes. I think you should read that if you can make the time so you might understand the seriousness of the situation. MeAgain2006 18:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just removed the identical material that JM inserted a few days ago into the Wonderland Murders article. Hayford Peirce 19:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you assistance Dpbsmith. I answered your remarks on the Holmes discussion. Tried my best to keep it impersonal MeAgain2006 23:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dpbsmith, I have finished my edits for content and added the proper citations. The problem now is that I cannot use any of the "debunking" information as it appears on person blogs, public messages boards, and websites. In light of the strident tone of the other messages, and in trying to be impartial and fair, I would like to include it but cannot and keep within the guidelines as far as I can see. MeAgain2006 mentioned 2 sites but both are someone's personal blog and website. The second one had 1 article from a newspaper I thought I could use but it does not link the two murder stories, nor the two women in those stories. I am extremely hesitant about referencing that site anyway as it appears to be a carefully constructed log of one person stalking and harassing another, with nothing more than suspicion and one persons word that any of the ISP addresses listed or message board identities belonging to whom they purport them to belong to. I would like to add the information I have back in with the edits I have completed but fully anticipate being reversed again if I do not include the contrary information. Any advice you can give on this matter would be appreciated. JM

I suggest you put a draft of your material into the Talk page of the John Holmes article and let people discuss it. You are not necessarily required to include the debunking material yourself. That's really the job of the people who think it's important to include it. The important thing is that the material you wish to include be well sourced and well cited. If you want to try to put in some of MeAgain2006's side of the story but don't have good citations, go ahead and put them in and include the {{citation needed}} tag yourself.

Go to Talk:John Holmes (actor), press the "+" tab, type in a subject line like "Proposed addition," and include your material. You should expect vigorous criticism, and people will probably want to reduce the length and amount of detail, and some people may want to check the citations or discuss whether they meet "reliable source" guidelines. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dpbsmith, I put in the cites as you asked and put it on the Talk/Discussion page. It may need to be trimmed down I understand that and I tried to cite as well as I could but putting something at the end of every sentence or in the middle of it reads as very annoying. Alas, I tried. Let me know if any additional corrections need to be made. JM

Split infinitive is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 16:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, some other people who had nothing to do with the dispute of several weeks ago about "science-fiction writers write science fiction" have now stepped into the article on Science Fiction and are insisting on taking out the correct hyphens. I, and an English teacher, have tried to get them to read the article on compound modifiers but apparently to no avail: they prefer to have their own way rather than being correct. Since I feel that everything in Wiki ought to be *correct* instead of merely being subject to a vote, I would appreciate it if you could look this situation over and do whatever you can to restore the correct order of things. Many thanks! Hayford Peirce 20:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, nuhn-huh, no way, ain't gunna.

Now, personally, I hyphenate the word. But, personally, I use a lot of punctuation that is going by the wayside. I put the apostrophe in Hallowe'en where my fourth grade teacher said it was supposed to go, I put a hyphen between the o's in co-operate (and for a nickel I'd put a dieresis over the second o), and I insist on using a driver's license, not a driver license.

But I've seen "science-fiction" both ways, and frankly I think when I was a kid the little labels with the picture of a rocket ship that the library used to put on the spines of the books said "science fiction," not "science-fiction." And I notice that a dictionary I know and like gives science fiction with a space as the entry word and science-fiction with a hyphen as—

yikes, oh, wait, this is IMHO totally bizarre. They seem to be saying that science-fiction is the adjectival form and science fiction is the noun. Maybe that's what you're referring to above.

Well, I don't think it's important, so there.

For what it's worth, when I was in high school in the 1960s, my senior English paper was entitled "Upward Ho! A defence of science-fiction." Note the c in defence. For some reason I liked to use British spellings. My teachers heaved a sigh and said as long as it was deliberate and I was consistent in using it, they wouldn't red-pencil it.

It opens: "Science-fiction has suffered almost every ignominy except that of being published by Grosset and Dunlap. It is read by a small group of avid fans, and almost completely ignored by everyone else. There is but a single work on the genre written by an 'outsider;' it was published in 1960."

So if the dictionary is correct about the noun-adjective thing, I was hyphenating it when I shouldn't have, so I'm not going to pick on people who are failing to hyphenated it when they should.

Besides, as everyone knows, the correct term is scientifiction.

Seriously, this is like the British-versus-American usage thing. Just let it go. If it's wrong, it's a common enough error not to matter. The last thing Wikipedia is good at is deciding matters of usage and style. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hehe. Sorry, I think I got you mixed up with User:23skidoo about this hyphen business. We had a go around with it a couple of weeks ago with some other people. To sum it up briefly: if you believe that the compound modifier business is correct, then one writes: "Science-fiction writers write science fiction." One with a hyphen, one without. But, God knows, I've made plenty of grammatical errors in my own checkered past. Like you, at least I was generally consistent with them. I guess the things that bug me the most at the moment are "science-fiction whatever" and incorrectly using "which" instead of "that" in certain cases. I could devote the rest of my life to tracking down these things in Wiki but I'm not going to bother.... Cheers! Hayford Peirce 18:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A continuation of the old "when not to cite" discussion from WP:CITE is at Wikipedia talk:Scientific citation guidelines, listed as a "science" "guideline" now at WP:CITE, without consensus from science areas other than math/physics. Sandy (Talk) 17:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at this article, and related discussion on the talk page, if you have some time. I'd appreciate getting another perspective. Thanks. --Allan McInnes (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review and correct the licensing tag on the image. There is a copyright symbols listed, which contradicts the license tag. Cheers! Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 05:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I see that I need more education on the differences between GDFL and Creative Commons. Most people are using Creative Commons in my experience. I read the licensing for GDFL & CC, but I don't see significant differences. You're right about listing the copyright under GDFL. Cheers! Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 15:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again: It occurs to me you may well know about this item. Many years ago (probably 30 or so) I remember reading (I think in Newsweek) about a Canadian who had devoted much of his career (maybe at the Univ. of Western Ontario) to research in two-dimensional things; he had invented a whole world of two dimensions and was always trying to figure out how living things in such a place could do A, B, or C. Somewhat whimsical, yes, but I also remember that his research had proven useful in some areas of science and engineering. This is obviously related to Abbott's "Flatland" but goes much further. Does this ring any bells with you? Or do you have any ideas on how I could learn more about it? Ever since I read the article I have had a solution for one problem he had encountered but have no idea how to proceed, or even if he is still doing this, still teaching somewhere, still alive, etc. Merci! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 15:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds cool but I'm afraid it is utterly unfamiliar to me. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've also appreciated your work on this, colonial colleges, ivy league and a few academic-related other articles I try to keep an eye on. You usually beat me to the punch on correcting or reverting with the Ivy League article. —ExplorerCDT 00:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your recent edits at Rutgers University

(Oops. I forgot a certain well-known private university in New Jersey)

Which? Felician? DeVry? Fairleigh Dickinson? Seton Hall?... Or that community college a few miles south of ol' Rutgers on Route 27? (kidding) —ExplorerCDT 03:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I suggest you take a look at The Boris Yeltsin article and either delete it, mark it for speedy deletion, or at least put it up for deletion. Apparently there is just this one obscure restaurant that is serving it. Bon appetit! Hayford Peirce 18:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lancaster courthouse.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Nv8200p talk 13:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you take a look at the George Jones article and give us your opinion about the listing of Jones's hits about half-way down the article? It's "Songs In Top 100 Since 1955 — (In parentheses: weeks at #1, #2, or #3)[8]". I spent a certain amount of time putting this info in and formatting it, so I feel a certain proprietary interest in it, without, of course, feeling that it is sacrosanct or can't be improved. For a couple of months now, various other editors remove, from time to time, the section of the header that reads "(In parentheses: weeks at #1, #2, or #3)[8]". I feel fairly strongly about one part of this deletion -- that by doing so, they are removing a vital reference, ie, to a Joel Whitburn book that contains all this info. I think that this listing of his hits can't just be conjured out of the blue, so that the reference (and footnote) is essential. The portion of the header that reads "(In parentheses: weeks at #1, #2, or #3)" apparently upsets other editors, although none of them have actually told me why except to say that this info isn't needed. Maybe simply because it doesn't look very pretty the way it is formatted. I spent a long time trying to make this parenthetical remark look either smaller or on a second line below the main header but couldn't succeed in doing so. My own feeling is that these somewhat mysterious numbers in the list of hits should be explained. Others apparently feel that they are self-explanatory. If you would take a look at the list, and its header, and give us your judgment on the matter, I would be happy to abide by your decision -- it's not something I want to spend the next 5 years fighting about.... Thanks! Hayford Peirce 03:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am Tony Pierce and I am very new to Wikipedia so I apologize if you are the wrong person to come to with this. If I am on the wrong page, could you please contact the moderator MONDO who was quite helpful last night with me. Anyways, I noticed that you were the one who MONDO asked to remove the link to my resume on this page. Unfortunately there are still two lies in that comment by user timecop so I went to his Talk page and asked him to delete.

One is a major lie and libelous (that I haven't held a job for more than a year) something that a good reading of the above resume that he found and linked to could determine. The other is a trivial lie, but a lie never-the-less that I claim to be the Blogfather.

If this particular AfD had not made the front page of Digg yesterday I would let it slide, but because it did, and it indirectly points to that discussion, I feel it's necessary to fix this issue ASAP. Regardless of what the outcome of this debate on if I'm notable turns out yea or nay, I am notable enough that these two lies could easily hurt my good name and whatever (nerdy) standing I have in the blogosphere.

I am a professional blogger, the Editor of LAist, and currently mired in this weird turmoil at Wikipedia. All I want is for the debate to be honest and truthful and focused on my so-called notability. The user timecop stubbornly refuses to remove the lies, does not deny that they are not lies, and asked me not to discuss the matter with him any longer, which tells me that he intends on keeping the lies up there.

To add insult to injury in his latest comment on my AfD he added a third, far more trivial, lie that I haven't been read by millions, when indeed my first year on the blogosphere I received over 3 million hits. All I want is for the two lies to be removed. If Wikipedia somehow punishes people who knowingly keep lies on a very public debate for the sole purpose of defaming an innocent blogger, then so be it. I respect everyone's opinions about my place on Wikipedia, but I can't have those two lies floating around as one effects my present and future livelihood and the other effects my good standing in the dorky world of the blogosphere. Thank you! - Tony Pierce 75.200.116.69 05:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See [2], [3], and [4]. Everything is listed in numbers not Roman numerals. Just a mere "Course VI" does not mean every department uses Roman numerals. If you can find two or three official sites with all the courses listed in Roman numerals, then you are right. MITBeaverRocks 15:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Every entry in the Course News in Technology Review uses Roman numerals. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you had rv'd all my edits (which would have been malicious) rather than just added your choice bit back in. I apologize for the tone of my protest. When I just checked the article, I saw that my comment re: Newfoundland and your quote re: Oregon are side-by-side. Since I don't want to create a "too many cooks" situation I'll leave you to remove my comment and harmonize the text. Best wishes. ◄HouseOfScandal►01:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for the clarification. I understand that your example of a trip from Boston makes more sense, but I think just using the quotation works better. I'll try to do something reasonable.

I do appreciate the fact that many of your edits were in the direction of tightening up the text and trying to say the same thing in fewer words. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of town on the North Shore of Boston have them. Rockport, Gloucester, Danvers, Manchester-by-the-Sea, Beverly Farms, to name a few. There are a good deal of them though, I thought it was odd to just name Chepachet. Jgdann 01:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please adhere to Wikipedia policies and post your change "In" the discussion section of an article before making your change. --Roger the red 20:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the "Biograph" article, which I am thouroghly sick of, there has to be a deletion of repetative material. This article is up for peer review as well as with Wiki-Film. It is acceptable to be clear but have everything in this article stated ONCE, not two, or three times. This is idiotic and makes the article look like a 3rd grade essay. Notice the "B" grading. There are also more references and citations in this one article than any other film article on Wikipedia. This is why I have a morbid curiosity on this. I have little time and on here very little, but when I am, I will make contributions. --Roger the red 20:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have no detailed knowledge of the matter, it's my understanding that the BIOS source code appeared in the "purple book" that IBM provided to other companies under NDA. Did IBM publish it more openly than that? Gazpacho 00:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might want to take a gander at that article. If you don't think there's merit to it, perhaps it ought to go? JDoorjam Talk 18:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found a reference to a treatise written by William F. Buckley about elitism at Yale; I thought this might be a good counterweight to George H. W. Bush's statement about the levels of elitism there. FWIW, I think the section is growing nicely, especially considering the regular authors of that article are practically an Ivy League students and alumni association and no one has cried foul about the elitism associated with their degrees. JDoorjam Talk 01:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To tell the truth, I was worried about overdoing it with the 1988 material, but I thought it showed quite clearly that there was a public perception of elitism within living memory, and I think and hope that the Russell Baker material is funny enough (and so clearly exaggerated) as not to sting.

I'm not sure how to interpret Bush's comments—Baker thought that he was hypocritically trying to pretend to be "plain folks" and hoping nobody would notice his alma mater. I think Bush did intend to accuse Dukakis of belonging to the upper class, and when caught at it insisted that he was referring Harvard's political reputation rather than its social reputation. Which is odd because personally I think of Yale as being slightly more politically liberal than Harvard, although I'm not sure why I think so.

I'm not sure exactly what Buckley says in God and Man at Yale. By the way, that's not exactly an obscure book. It was a big bestseller--don't get me wrong, I was in elementary school at the time—but it was very familiar and frequently referred to for decades afterwards. My recollection was that it was quite popular with all the Ayn Rand fans when I was in college. That book was, in fact, what made him famous.

Anyway, I don't plan to add more to the section, but if Buckley has something interesting to say it would be worthwhile, because he's a) so notable, b) so clearly identified as a political conservative, and c) was writing at just about the time the athletic league was formed. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. For balance, it would be nice to have a good source citation that says in effect that Ivy Leaguers have not a scintilla of stuck-up aristocratic snobbery to them, their admissions have always been strictly meritocratic, etc. It wouldn't be true, of course, but it would add balance and reduce the chances of the section being deleted out of hand. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no call for snide remarks about Rutgers, and I would appreciate it if you'd remove the remark you made at Talk:University_of_Pennsylvania#Admissions_Selectivity. No, I'm not a Rutgers alum. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was more of a response to the user talking about idiot offspring at Penn; people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. --Tom 01:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is tantalizing: I ran a search for "Rutgers Ivy League" at Google Books and found this snippet from a 1933 issue of Newsweek, which explicitly mentions the Ivy League, and Yale being a member, but I can't see the rest of the text, and I don't know what the "Rutgers" mention is that brought this page up. It also only says the year (but not week) of publication, and doesn't give a page number. Aside from finding and reading 52 issues of Newsweek from 1933, is there an easier way to find out what is on this page that you're aware of? JDoorjam Talk 20:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell printed that motto on their promotional material for a while in the 90's; I'm having a hard time finding a documented source for it, but think it would be a great addition to the elitism section of Ivy League. In case you find yourself thumbing through Cornell literature for any reason, it's something to keep an eye out for.... JDoorjam Talk 05:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O my goodness. Sounds to me like a defensive reaction to the opinion that Cornell is not quite as Ivy as the rest. What philosophical questions that raises! Is "Elite, not elitist" itself an elitist sentiment?

What a lot of great slogans that suggests:

• MIT: "Technique, not technocracy"
• Swarthmore: "Quality, not Quakerism"
• Brigham Young University: "Moral, not Mormon"
• The Five College Consortium: "Fivy, not Ivy"

and, of course

• Smith: "Feminine, not feminist"

Dpbsmith (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you create stub articles such as Showscan, please try to find the appropriate specific stub tag(s) on the page WP:STUBS. This saves other editors work in categorizing the page, and makes it easier for editors with experise in the subject to find pages that need work. Thanks, — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 21:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking to nominate this article as a Featured Article candidate in a few weeks. As you are the de facto guru of higher education issues, I would be grateful if you'd pipe in with some brutal suggestions to improve the article here: Wikipedia:Peer review. Thanks. —ExplorerCDT 23:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I shouldn't be considered a guru; I have no special knowledge beyond that which I've been led to by curiosity while working on university articles. But thanks for the note. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Only the 1936 adaptation of Show Boat'. In 1951, he was sorta blacklisted (no pun intended) because of his Stalinist views. His work was hard to find even years after his death. Robeson only sang the grinch song, and had no other role in the production. Even if Friedman is associated with UChicago, it didn't stop WSJ and NYT from starting their articles mentioning that he was Rutgers-grown. Even if he was a famous black entertainer, Friedman had a greater impact intellectuall, hence why i'd advocate him more than Robeson. There is a considerable hatred of his name at Rutgers among students and alumni (especially the white crowd), and his honouring at Rutgers with 3-buildings being named was a result of the EOE/Affirmative Action movement. His name leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. If you want to honor a black alumnus of Rutgers, I'd much prefer you replace Robeson with James Dickson Carr. —ExplorerCDT 00:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm correctively informed by User:Ruhrfisch that it was Thurl Ravenscroft who sang "You're a mean one, Mr. Grinch". —ExplorerCDT 01:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't plan to tinker with the paragraph in the immediate future, and don't plan to revert your change. I didn't choose Robeson with any intention of equalizing race representation or anything like that. (I don't think you put in Milton Friedman to secure Jewish representation, either). You're right about Robeson not being in the 1951 film; I was mistaken. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a great paragraph. Thank you for adding it. Any suggestions on cutting out deadwood with the alumni section? What do you think of my idea of just footnoting the hell out of a line (better written of course) that says "rutgers is among the best universities in the world/u.s." to get rid of the rankings section? —ExplorerCDT 02:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. In general I like the idea of pushing details that are very important to a very few people into footnotes. I would, however, think about several ranks and their links into a single footnote so that you don't have eight superscripts all jammed together.

The closest things to "neutral" rankings, in the limited sense that almost every article mentions them—as opposed to unusual rankings that are cited only for schools that did well in them—would, in my opinion, be U. S. News and Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Although I dislike U. S. News, I think it is highly relevant because a) overambitious parents really pay attention to it, b) it apparently measures the things these people actually care about.

The rankings do need to be pruned. The material identifying strong departments is good, though, because it says you something specific about Rutgers, and because at both the graduate and undergraduate levels the quality of your department (or major) is likely to be much more important than any meaningless overall measurement.

Even though my political leanings are such that I admire what Washington Monthly is trying to do, I really don't think their rankings have a place in Wikipedia (although this is a battle I consistently lose). Their rankings have a political spin on them and they measure what Washington Monthly wishes people cared about, instead of what they do care about. They are not measuring academic quality. Someone glancing at resumes is not going to know or care that the applicant attended a school high-ranked by Washington Monthly. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. Even though the boosters would probably never be content with a characterization of a university merely as "good," I'm thinking maybe something like

Rutgers is an important national^[#] and regional^[#] university, with strong programs in philosophy^[#], mathematics^[#], and physics^[#]

or whatever the truly stand-out departments are... Dpbsmith (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't you agree that your quote:

"As U.S.-Soviet tensions eased, America's anti-propaganda attitude quickly resurfaced, and a new term was used to describe the USIA's mission: "public diplomacy." This term was first coined in the mid-1960s by Dean Edmund A. Gullion of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Explaining the origin of the term, Gullion wrote (1967) that:

"Even beyond the organ of the Government set up to handle information about the United States and to explain our policies, what is important today is the interaction of groups, peoples, and cultures beyond national borders, influencing the way groups and peoples in other countries think about foreign affairs, react to our policies, and affect the policies of their respective governments.

"To connote this activity, we at the Fletcher School tried to find a name. I would have liked to call it 'propaganda.' It seemed like the nearest thing in the pure interpretation of the word to what we were doing. But 'propaganda' has always a pejorative connotation in this country. To describe the whole range of communications, information, and propaganda, we hit upon 'public diplomacy'."

would be appropriate somewhere in the United States Information Agency article? ...or that there should perhaps be a public diplomacy article? Cheers for digging up that quote, to by the way. Hope your New Year is going well for you. User:Pedant 23:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the fact that you reduced the said article to a stub without warning, I am going to have to lambast you for that as being vandalism. The marketing language can be lost, but please don't overly purge the article to just a one-sentence wonder as I'm going to take that as vandalism. There are plenty of ways to improve the article, but your idea of reducing the article to a one-sentence blunder is just a bit too extreme and constitutes vandalism (drastic edit without discussing). — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 03:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the article should include a list of the football champs (perhaps B-ball as well)? After all its an athletic conference, and Big East, Pac 10 and Big 12 all list at minimum the annual football champs. Cornell Rockey 14:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I don't think it should. We already have a problem with this article being used as a vehicle for boosterism and inter-school rivalry. And it has been decades since the Ivy League was an important conference outside of its membership. I don't believe Ivy League games are even broadcast on network television. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • YES Network broadcasts Ivy football and b-ball, and CSTV broadcasts the harvard-cornell hockey game every year. The b-ball champ goes onto March Madness every year. It still is an athletic conference, however 2nd tier/unimportant it is. Cornell Rockey 18:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You said "do you think..." You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was just pointing out the facts, not arguing. Thank you for your opinion. Cornell Rockey 04:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make reverts without discussion, or use edit summaries falsely claiming consensus to do so. This could be considered edit warring and disruption.-Cindery 21:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please either cite a good published source or stop trying to force this material into the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated the article Jane Dark for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Dark. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Jane Dark during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Jayden54Bot 15:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Turdus migratorius is a good example. The biological editors and various WikiProjects are in debate back and forth over whether articles should be by common name or scientific name (binomial nomenclature), and the results on Wikipedia are appalling. Thanks for chiming in though. —ExplorerCDT 14:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Phooey. I think it should be under the common name. I didn't realize that wasn't consensus any more. Perhaps the times are a changin' and perhaps we're moving toward more formality in article naming. Oh, well. It really doesn't matter much, the issue of what should be the real article and what should be the redirect is more Zen than of any practical importance to any real user of Wikipedia. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've always thought that incorrect common names should take a back seat to correct official long-form names. Nobel Prize in Economics being one that I've argued over and lost, but I keep going through articles and changing the mention of the prize to the long form. Since Rutgers University isn't entirely incorrect, previously, I agreed with short-form.—ExplorerCDT 17:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the advice of another admin, I've posted the material about Roger to the AN. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Roger the red. Since you've dealt with the editor your input would be valuable. -Will Beback · † · 05:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 02:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanation is very good, and I think it should be posted as an essay, which can then be conveniently linked to from relevant places. Tyrenius 18:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks... is there a specific place for "essays?" Dpbsmith (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't noticed, the bit about the sexuality of Abraham Lincoln being disputed hasn't been on the article for very long. And also in case you didn't notice, I was the one who put a {{totallydisputed}} tag on it to try to push people to sort out the POV problems. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ouch. Sorry. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dpb. Someone has gone to a lot of trouble to create a hoax article at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkeyman_Bald_Eagle_Meat_Taco_Company

Can you delete it instantly, or do whatever needs to be done? Thanks, Hayford Peirce 16:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 21:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}[reply]

Hi - I notice you were active a bit on the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons article last month. I've gone through and expanded it, trying to use the organization's website and articles from their Journal to describe their position as much as possible, along with some third-party sources (e.g. NY Times). Anyhow, if you feel like popping back to take a look at the article, I'd appreciate your feedback. MastCell 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am inviting all recent editors of Joseph McCarthy to comment on a current dispute. User:KarlBunker, in his stated view out of concern for WP:NPOV#Undue weight, has reverted, deleted, and selectively reinstated factually accurate sourced information that I have added. I contend he is in error. Please see the discussion at Talk:Joseph McCarthy. Thank you. Kaisershatner 17:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"And why do you use a signature which adds every page on which you use it into the category of pages that need source citations?"

Um...I never thought about that, and I'm changing it immediately! Thank you. -Sue Rangell

Nice work! Encouraging to know that there are a few articles yet to be written ... Let's see, there's Horatio Parker's Mona, George Wakefield Chadwick's The Padrone, and probably a whole lot of stuff from the early 20th century "Indianist movement". Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Not to mention Victor Herbert's other opera, Madeleine. Which I never heard about until I started looking for Natoma-related stuff.

Too bad I don't know boo about any of it... and, well, don't care much. This whole thing was triggered because I happen to be reading Meredith Willson's "And There I Stood With My Piccolo." Dpbsmith (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, yes, it's not a hot topic of conversation even at musicology conferences. And it's suprisingly difficult to find recordings of any of it (frankly I think the quality of most native-written music at that time is pretty bad, especially when you compare it to what was being written simultaneously in Paris and Vienna ... but shh, don't tell the AMS I said that). Antandrus (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did listen to Chadwick's Second Symphony last year. I like it. Incidentally, I also ran across the Naxos recording of Meredith Willson's symphonies, and I like his Symphony No. 1. Finding a recording of Natoma is not real high on my list of priorities, though!

I am curious about the "Indianist" movement though. Never heard that phrase before. I gather you actually know something about music—I'm a philistine who listens to what he likes—so I assume you know that Dvorak apparently believed that Indian and Negro music were all but identical, and that the New World Symphony was inspired by The Song of Hiawatha? Dpbsmith (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look up Arthur Farwell on the Indianist movement (he was really the central figure), and the Wa-Wan Press. The whole area needs to be written about better on Wikipedia. Dvorak was really the one who got it started by encouraging a lot of young and energetic people to look at the music of their own continent; it's of mixed quality, but you can indeed find some gems. Antandrus (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MIT! Add Arthur Farwell to my list of famous MIT non-engineers. Hugh Lofting being the, uh, other. I wonder if there's any connection to the On-I-Set Wigwam, a Spiritualist church still operating in Onset, Massachusetts? Not a direct connection, I just mean it seems as if there was a certain fascination with "Indians" at the time.... Dpbsmith (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there was a connection. I don't see anything about their history on that web site. Antandrus (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Start here. Onset was founded in 1880 by Spiritualists. Incidentally, Onset is part of Wareham, but with a separate post office, and in some cases there are different streets in Onset and Wareham that have the same name, and most of the online map websites will give you the wrong answer if you ask them to show you "X Street, Onset, MA" if there is also an "X Street, Wareham, MA" Dpbsmith (talk) 03:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i appreciate your editorial input. the material you added is new and appears to conflict with NPOV and not cited. please consider making your introductory input succinct and developing your input in the body of the article and add the necessary citation. i'm new at this and you can do whatever you want so you do not have to heed my input! warm regards παράδοξος 05:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, accidentally put this comment on your user page. revision looks great!

παράδοξος 20:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping that the good people at Conservapedia haven't tied you to a stake yet and you'll be back to witty banter at the MIT page(s) sometime soon. Or otherwise enjoying a wikibreak? Madcoverboy 23:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice to hear from you! I'm getting a little fatigued with Wikipedia because, in fact, most articles are in reasonably good shape and there's not a lot to do except combat vandals and edit-war over trivia. I did recently find, to my joy, an opportunity to contribute a completely new article here: Natoma. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I found that all that was left for me to do on WP, by the time I got here, was fix the occasional comma. And I'd put it back later that afternoon... oh, wait, no, that was Uncyclopedia... but, on the other hand, CP is a rich mine of room for improvement, a veritable sandbox of opportunity to make a difference in the world. You (Dpbsmith) seem to be doing very well over there so far. And I haven't been banned yet... Anyway, just saying "hello"! Huw Powell 00:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC) (PS, I'm "human" at CP)[reply]

Yes, Conservapedia is sort of like attending a large party of your spouse's relatives from Iowa and finding that they're all very pleasant people—provided you stay off the topics of sex, politics, and religion. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your name is listed at Wikipedia:School and university projects - instructions for students so I welcome you to join the new WikiProject that covers classroom assignments. Regards, Durova^Charge! 19:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your reversion of wikifying edits made to Goddard Lieberson, and have added my arguments to the Wikify project talk page. Windymilla 21:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dpbsmith,

Your comments on a page about me, Jeanne Fleming, was just brought to my attention. I just wanted to let you directly that my bio there on Wikipedia says that I designed and produced Harbor Festival 1986 (and also 85 and 84 for that matter !)....which was The Official Land Celebration for the Centennial of the Statue of Liberty. This is not "wildly exaggerated." "Liberty Weekend" was presented in several parts--David Wolper produced the VIP and television event held at the Meadowlands in New Jersey and on Governor's Island. I produced the Land celebration--that is the celebration for the millions of general public in Lower Manhattan that involved 12 stages, 7 parades daily, an ethnic food festival, authentic performers from all over the world and across the nation and many, mnay other things! Then, there was Op Sail, which was the water event. The Fireworks were done by Tommy Walker of Disney with several different fireworks companies. Wolper came under a lot of criticsm for his events because they were limited to VIPS and ticket holders. The public event was three days of pure fun for abosultely everyone !

I think what the bio says is, therefore, accurate--I designed and Produced Harbor Festival 86 --the Official Land Celebration for the Statue of Liberty--to which millions of people came and which is the event that most folks remember...

J —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.32.46.209 (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I went by the sources I could find, and I couldn't find anything to that effect in the New York Times full-text database. My apologies if I was unfair. Are there any other sources that could be cited in regard to the importance of your role? Dpbsmith (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear dpbsmith,

I am not sure where you could look...it was interesting time and my role --though I appeared right beside David many, many times (and was consulted by him many times) as we presented the weekend to police, press etc., my role was not a "Celebrity " one---there was a lot of politics going on at the time and a great deal of "sexy" attention was given to Lee Iacocca and others as part of the VIP events--my role was not advertised and promoted like that--I was just the person who did the major public celebration...honestly speaking I work in NYC all the time doing various things--Wolper came in from LA and then left...for me it was my work in the City and that everyone knew what I did that mattered..I was not so interested in publicity, just that I could keep working in NYC and had the respect of city officials and the police--with whom I have a close relationship after our event went so perfectly that weekend--nine births, no deaths, or robberies ! Just a wonderful time was had by all... It really came in handy when I had to do the Halloween Parade just 7 weeks after 9/11 and Guiliani trusted me todo that and show the world that NYC wsa going to okay. J

I also just thought of something else--because this WAS 20 years ago !!!--the Harbor Festival was sponsored by NY Newsday(which was making a move into Manhattan at the time)---and the Times and the Daily News had a competitive relationship with them...as a result, the publicity of Harbor Festivbal and its story was not carried by the other papers as much...it was actually a problem leading up to the event--and the final schedule published by the Times was innaccurate. I had forgotten all that part !!! J

Also ! How do you find out who wrote a Wikipedia article about you?? I had never even seen this before !!

J

"How do you find out who wrote a Wikipedia article about you??" Ah. Well, there isn't any very good answer, and it's been a sore point when the article has been unflattering. In this case, if you go to the article and press the History tab, you'll find the Wikipedia user names of all the people who made changes to the article, starting with the person who created it. Sometimes the user names are similar to peoples' real names, sometimes not. Sometimes you can reach them on their Talk page to ask questions, and sometimes their "E-mail this user" link may allow you to send email.

In your case, the article was started by a user with the user name Paul Klenk, which sounds like a real name. Does it ring any bells?

Now, I don't speak for Wikipedia so the next few things I say might not be absolutely right, and I'm telling you what I think the situation is which is not necessarily exactly the way I'd like to see it.

First, an encyclopedia isn't under any responsibility to inform someone when they write an article about them, nor is a newspaper. It's up to you to subscribe to a clipping service (are there still such things) or Google on your name occasionally to see what the Internet is saying about you. Wikipedia is the same way.

Well, you will say, what's to stop someone from writing a slanderous article about me? Here's how it supposed to work and a) it works surprisingly well but b) on occasion has serious problems. First, the rules are that there is not supposed to be any truly original material in Wikipedia. Everything in Wikipedia is supposed to be a compilation from outside sources that are stated and which can be checked. Second, the assumption is that lots of people will be looking at the article and will catch gross problems. It doesn't always work. Third, it is a typical Wikipedian attitude to say "so fix it." Since anyone can edit an article, it's felt that if someone's unhappy with an article they should just correct it (as you just did).

Your article, for example, is very poorly sourced. But nothing much has been done about it, probably because you're not such a celebrity that lots of people look at the article every day, and because it all sounds reasonably plausible and nothing seems suspiciously unflattering or like an attack. (On the contrary, I have a problem with it because it sounds too much like a promotional puff piece).

I could have done several things at that point. I could have deleted most of the article as unsourced, or nominated the entire article for deletion. What I did instead was to make a quick reality check on whether the article seemed to be accurate. The New York Times didn't seem to have very much in it about you or the event, so I discharged a little venom on the talk page and went on about my business.

Now. Three tips. First, create an account. It takes about ten seconds, it's free, you don't need to disclose so much as an email address, and it will make it easier for other people to discuss things with you. You can go either way: choose a user name that's like your real name, so people will know who you are... or pick an entirely fictitious name if you want to retain privacy.

Second, be very careful when editing an article about yourself. Correcting small errors and making small clarifications, as you've done, is fine. The best thing you can do for yourself and for Wikipedia is to add and quote sources as much as possible. You might also consider toning down it down a bit and making it more like an encyclopedia article and less like a promotional brochure.

Third, this is the big one, the most helpful thing you could possibly do would be to provide sources. Instead of "She is credited for building the parade to its present state," say "So-and-so said 'It's really her parade; she's the one that built it to its present state,' Newsday, date, page, title. Put the reference in just any old way you can; other Wikipedians will be glad to take care of technical details like formatting.

Hope this helps. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. If you Google on "Jeanne Fleming" this article comes up as the first hit.

P. P. S. I think a Web source like this article would be considered an example of a good source for an article like this. It doesn't have to be print. In fact web sources are better in a way because they're easier to check. The main thing about web sources is that they have to be something like a newspaper, not a blog or a forum that anyone can add anything to. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dpbsmith,

Thank you for all your help and advice. Yes, Paul Klenk wrote the article about the Halloween Parade for Wikipedia and I think that is how this article came to be. I really do not look for publicity--don't seek it--am a behind the scenes sort of person... so I never even looked at all this. Right now it is a bit odd, since I am making a couple of new events, if folks go there they will question my role in the Statue when they see your post...Is there a way that the "true" story can come out in a reasonable way...J

(Very few people will ever look at the Talk page unless they're involved in editing the article.)

I've edited the Talk page to make things as clear as possible. I've removed my language calling the original description "wildly exaggerated." I hope this helps. It's about as far as I want to go.

I take it you know who Paul Klenk is? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DP,

I am sorry I have been very busy and have not had a chance to check back and answer your question re: Paul Klenk --no, I do not know who he is, but he did communicate with me that he was doing an article--and most recently asking for a Press Pass for this year's Halloween Parade..so perhaps I will meet him then..

Thank you for the corrections...I would never have noticed it, but my friend Shannon (who is ALWAYS on the computer) did and pointed it out...

Be well,

Jeanne

Thanks for uploading Image:Howardjohnsonmodern.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. MER-C 11:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dpbsmith,

the articles unsolved problems in biology, unsolved problems in chemistry, and unsolved problems in medicine have again be nominated for deletion. Your comment would be appreciated on the discussion pages Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in biology (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in chemistry, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in medicine 2.

Thanks, Cacycle 00:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time and/or inclination, I invite you to add back some of the deleted material in the Billy Sunday article. Not as a section at the end, but perhaps as a section near the "social and political views" section--in the body of the article, in other words. Best if you could incorporate the material into existing areas, with necessary editing.

If you are familiar with the discussion on the article, you will note that it is primarily written/edited/maintained by John Foxe. I have added/edited/maintained the material on Sunday's early life and baseball career, while attempting to edit and add more material on Sunday's cultural/historical importance. The discussion will also show that I feel that John Foxe's emphasis on theology and his unwillingness to include material in the article that rounds out the portrait of Sunday as a preacher (NOT minister, if that distinction makes sense) and a popular culture figure is a POV problem.

Anyway, I invite contributions from someone new to this debate. --Rocketj4 12:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I'll take a look when I get a Round Tuit, which won't be this weekend. I agree with your comment above. Billy Sunday was a popular culture figure of the first magnitude, and in a very different category from, say, Dwight Moody. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or Billy Graham, for that matter.--Rocketj4 16:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the little things I've been meaning to look into is whether, in using the name "Billy," Billy Graham had any intention whatsoever of evoking memories of Billy Sunday. Despite obvious differences, Billy Graham was often described as being the most successful evangelist "since Billy Sunday" and people did confuse the two of them, particularly during the fifties and sixties. And Billy Graham was taken to see Billy Sunday when Graham was young.

It seems like an obvious question and you'd think Graham must have said something about it at some point... either "it was a complete coincidence" or that he admired some aspects of Sunday's career... no obvious answer has lept out at me, but then again I haven't been trying to research Graham. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]