Hosta

Picture of the day

Soldiers Playing Cards and Dice Painting: Valentin de Boulogne Archive – More featured pictures...

WP:CIRCULAR

"c. it relies on Wikipedia at least for some of its material, which would make it a circular reference." you made this claim on the elsevier textbook, can you please cite the pages in this where it cites wikipedia?--Patbahn (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Check out page 385 as example. The problem is that once you know a source relies on Wikipedia for some of its material, there is no way of knowing how much more material is so tainted. I had as example a no-advertising subscription-only aviation safety publication a couple of years ago, which relied on WP extensively for an article, including graphics and semi-complete sentences, yet provided no attribution whatsoever to WP. It was a bit shocking to have to pay money to see my own work, including the graphics. As bottom line, we may not rely on sources which use WP as source. Crum375 (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed this, very interesting. You might find this blog relevant, having downloaded the relevant report and looked at colors of noise it seems to check out. . . dave souza, talk 20:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have heard of similar stories too. And lately I have to spend a lot longer deciding if certain sources are "original" or WP-derived. I think this may be just the beginning of a long-term trend. Crum375 (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wegman Report is notable in its own right, the plagiarism is an interesting side issue but does raise questions about its reliability. As you say, we're increasingly going in circles! . . dave souza, talk 21:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Your article...

Hello,

I am very sorry, I did not mean to do that. I meant to remove the article which I just had passed; I forgot to remove my signature as well. I just did so now.

Have a good day, --Yueof theNorth 15:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

No original research

Why do you revert my changes without comment?

In the article

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position

you protected the following text by reverting:

"The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.

Although no conclusion is drawn... "

The second half of the first sentence draws a conclusion. Especially the word "but" signals a conclusion. I don't think it makes sense to show the wikipedia logic with a text example that misses logic.

Regards --Sustainlogic (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You added the comment "This is not really a good example of new synthesis." Such personal criticism should be added to a talk page, not inserted inside a policy page. Crum375 (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete the whole paragraph, and not only this sentence? --Sustainlogic (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sustainlogic (talk • contribs)

re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson you say this addition was unsourced so you deleted it. how about doing a little search of your own? it's been in all the papers tonight and the news. would not be too difficult to find multipul sources if you wanted. try to contribute rather, than take away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.176.56 (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on SS Struma. On the face of it, the edit history of the article and the discussion on its talk page appear to indicate that you are acting against consensus. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Victim list on Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907

re. [1].I saw the discussion at the top of the current talk page, which shows there are plenty of objections to this being included, and the few actual reasons for inclusion given are weak at best. I see no discussion of it in the FA pass, and it was objected to in the initial FA fail, without resolution, so that's no justification either. So, if you had any other discussion in mind, please point out the other specific places/comments where you think this list has had a discussion where a clear consensus has shown it belongs in the article. I am not accepting 'it's been discussed' as your reason for blind reverting, it simply does not belong on Wikipedia per WP:NOT, it has absolutely no encyclopoedic value. If you can't do that, I'm taking it to an Rfc. MickMacNee (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This issue appeared in both the FAC review and the article's talk page. In the FAC review the question was raised and answered, and was left to the other reviewers to decide. None of the other reviewers saw any problem with the list, and the article was promoted to FA with it. There was a subsequent discussion about it on talk, and the end result was to leave it as is. I see no problem with it — it adds important information, and does not violate any rule. Feel free to obtain more views about it. Crum375 (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please note in the Rfc that you had specifically asked Slrubenstein (talk · contribs) [2] and Fvasconcellos (talk · contribs) [3] to comment. I don't see anything wrong with the requests from the standpoint of CANVAS, the requests were neutral, and as it happens they have not both opined the same way, but I think it would be of use to any closer to know they were specifically asked to comment, and the reasons why (which are not clear to me). MickMacNee (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

They are both veteran editors whose judgment I trust, and in both cases I had no idea what they would say. One has general expertise on content policies, and the other on FA articles and this specific topic. As it stands, one seems to support the list, and one leans against it. Hopefully this helps. Crum375 (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It does, but as said, could you please note it on the Rfc page (identifying which is which). MickMacNee (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. Crum375 (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I do. Put it this way, if you don't note it, I will, but it would look better if it came from you. This Rfc was advertised in many places, as you know, so it is a simple common courtesy to the closer to note this extra solicitation, even though no rule has been broken. MickMacNee (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Feel feel to do it if you think you need to. Crum375 (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Done [4]. MickMacNee (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

2009 Manaus Aerotáxi crash

The Aviation Herald has updated its coverage of this accident, based on the Final Report by CENIPA (in Portuguese). Mjroots (talk) 10:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for David Warren (inventor)

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Pretty please ?

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/British European Airways Flight 548/archive2 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

What about writing together a book on gravitation?

Crum, it just occured to me that the best solution to the problem of creationists trying to get themselves into science using for this purpose severely underinformed in area of gravitation physicists, might be two of us writing a book on gravitation and splitting any possible profits 50:50.

As you might have noticed I already started writing something of this kind called "Gravitation Demystified" which shows (as you might have noticed as well) my severe lack of any literary and even linguistic skills. But I hope you have them and hopefully I understand gravitation at least as good as Einstein (possibly better) and also better than Feynman, which seems to be not that bad a combination. This way we may become minature Landau and Lifshitz and most important, to contribute to prevention of infiltration of science by creationists through the completely unguarded back door of cosmology which in my opinion is something that is going on while we talk (please notice that the only contemporary cosmological theories are metaphysical - with "creation" of metter. BTW, I hope you are not a theist?)

What would you say?

Jim (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Bad reasons for not writing a book about gravitation

Crum, sorry to bother you but it is only because your neither reason is a legitimate one. If you never want to write a book on gravitation I stop to bother you. But at least learn why your reasons ain't legitimate.

Your first reason: "I am busy with RL commitments, and can't afford to take time off for book writing."

The book is not that urgent that it can't wait. Not many people are interested in gravitation. Acording to Feynman it is not interesting enough to curious characters. Especially not to Feynman who believed that worldwide only "126 dopes" are interested in it and none of them worth listening to and some of them plain idiots. I believe him since I've been waiting with ready Einstainian explanation of cosmological redshift for over 25 years and even in my university nobody cares about reading this stuff. Gravitation is boooooring. So there is no big rush. I doubt someone writes such a book within next 50 or 100 years. It is already nearly 100 years since Einstein discovered physics of gravitation and no one even explained it well enough to regular physicsists so they would understand it. And I'm talking only about regular so called "gravitational force" which every physicists should understand and yet they asked about it fall silent and say that they heard something about Einstein explaining it but they are not sure what it was.

When I were explaining gravitation to physics professors during the breaks in their lectures (it takes under 15 minutes, well fitting their break) all except one who said "of course" (he is a relativist) laughed at me and said "it's not possible since if it were so simple I'd have heard about it". So you may see the a need to learn gravitation is there but no interested readers. Who needs Einstein's gravitation? Even NASA can manage without it and doing quite well with Newtonian. Only cosmology suffers since without Einstein's gravitation they are like "drunk children in fog". But cosmologists are probably happy since they may invent surrealistic theories and no one corrects them even when they introduce creationism to physics. On the other hand it might be their purpose and by writing a book we may interfere with their purpose. But it would be also a bad reason for not writing this book. After all they are paid from our taxes and so far doing no useful job.

"Second, I am not sure I know enough to be able to properly critique your material."

That's an argument for participating in writing this book. Nobody knows enough. Einstein didn't know enough to critique creationist, but within these 25 years of discussions with cosmologists I found out enough to tell you what you (and Einstein) don't/didn't know to be able to argue with creationists like LeMaitre and and Wheeler. Gravitation turns out to be real simple (see the above opinion of 100% of physics professors).

You say also: "But I do think, as I noted elsewhere, that you should try to convince one respectable physicist of your theories and/or interpretations, after which everything will be much easier for you."

It might be if such a physicists existed outside your imagination. Unfortunately this only professor (in about 100 that I mentioned) that understans Einstein's curvatures of spacetime and knows how simply the gravitational force is generated believes that energy may be created and God might exist, what he said at conference "Physics and Faith" organized by him and three other theist at Warsaw University. According to my experience it is impossible to convince a grownup who believes that God controls the universe, that there is no evidence of it. Especially when his faith is suported by creationists whom he takes for legitimate physicists or mathematicians.

It seems that the only reason why any physicist is interested in gravitation is because of the Big Bang and their hope that it proves existence of God. It might be why gravitation attracts only creationists, and that's why only creationist theories (with creation of matter) exist in cosmology and Einstein's theory has been derailed by Wheeler by keeping secret the fact that that Einstein maintained "that the spacetime metric tensor must be non symmetric" and that even in Newtonian gravitation in static universe there is the the same as observed in our universe amount of cosmological redshift. Otherwise why only creationists work in cosmology and teach students all over the world that creation of energy is OK? Jim (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

3RR warning

Please stop reverting other people's edits, as you are doing in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch). You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. If you revert again, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia without further notice. Please discuss any disputed changes on the talk page. Thank you. Three reversions in under 17 hours.—DCGeist (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"Please do not template regular editors"? I wish someone had templated me the other sleep-deprived morning to warn me that I was on the verge of violating 3RR, just as you are right now. Do you really think your behavior does not constitute edit warring? [5] [6] [7] Of course it does. And when you write, "I believe there are plenty of other editors who understand this point", what point exactly are you referring to? That you feel at liberty to ride roughshod over our policy and norms concerning consensus and maintaining status quo while a dispute is being discussed? That's the point that you seem to be awfully shaky on, though plenty of other editors do manage to get it all over this great encyclopedia of ours.—DCGeist (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

DCGeist - You're pushing too hard here. Warning users like this is not the way to win a content dispute. Please stick to issues, on the talk page there.

Crum375, please don't actually 3RR on the article. You know that, and I assume you don't intend to, but just to keep things as painless as possible...

Thanks, both of you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Your fans are calling

Your fans are calling at wp:nor re wp:att. North8000 (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Note

The RFC has been closed as consensus to remove. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I should add that this is a poor way to engage in discussion. I've never been involved in the underlying dispute, but I see a large number of reverts on that page from you. It's obvious that you disagree very much with removing the section, but edit warring about it is not a reasonable response regardless of the sincerity of your feelings on the matter. — Coren ^(talk) 13:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

FAC ping

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sutton Wick air crash/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Again: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1955 MacArthur Airport United Airlines crash/archive1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability

Hello, Crum. As a follow up of your suggestion about C. Johan Masreliez on my talk pagerecently, I opted for a test article on Masreliez’s theorem, which immediately attracted attention of RE, the No 1 Masreliez watchdog, questioning notability. Could you please advice as to the reasonable number of citations or secondary sources required in such a case. / Kurtan (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

1950 Tete de I'Obiou Crash unnamed source

I got the source from an e-Mail. It was from the nephew of Flight Attendant Helen Mahar. He told me his aunt was missing for weeks until found in a crevasse in the mountain. --707 (talk) 04:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Your advice is needed

This editor HXL has been committing a number of personal attacks against me in the discussion page of article Inner_Mongolia. He used words such as "faulty logic" in [8], "you tard" in [9], "pests like you" in [10]. Also he threatened me that he "can be brutal" here in [11]. Please advise whether such a treatment of fellow editors is acceptable? If not acceptable, then what actions are taken to repair the situation? Thank you in advance. ༄༅།།གང་ཐུ་ཡཱ།། (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

My RfC

I never have closed this RfC I posted on myself in June 2007, in part because several of the issues involved have continued over several years. Before I consider possibly closing it (I feel I'm the one who should close it since it was a self-RfC), I was wondering if you would like to reconsider your endorsements of SlimVirgin's and FloNight's summaries. If so, please strike through your endorsements. If you still stand by them, please consider adding an additional statement at the bottom the front page of the RfC. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:V

[12] Your wording leaves me wondering if you were labouring under a misapprehension there. The WP:V proposal is not about removing "not truth" from the policy, but about moving it to a separate section, and explaining it. Was that clear to you, or did you misunderstand the proposal? Cheers, --JN466 15:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:V RfC

You were mentioned here in passing, and you simply may not care, but I think there is a principle at stake. I have already responded. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 10:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Some facts about Arrow Gander DC-8 accident

I was the president of the Arrow pilots union at the time and I have some facts that were never discussed or questioned. I knew the entire flight crew and can attest to their proffessionalism. Please contact me if you interested in some truths and some very unusual event in the investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenbrodeur (talk • contribs) 02:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Crum375. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Scuba diving

Scuba diving has been protected since 2010. That's a long time, Should it not be unprotected and see how it goes? Its on my watchlist - I will let you know it it becomes a problem. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human Genetic History#Guidelines desperately needed. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Bonaire-sunset.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Please clarify Civility Policy?

Hi Crum375 - Could you please help clarify WP:NICE in this AN/I discussion? - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Daphne Gail Fautin

Hello! Your submission of Daphne Gail Fautin at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! JuneGloom Talk 00:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Daphne Gail Fautin

The DYK project (nominate) 00:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

File:AvjetAspenPlate.jpg listed for deletion on Wikimedia Commons

An image or media file you uploaded or altered, AvjetAspenPlate.jpg, has been listed at Commons Deletion requests.

You can read and participate in the deletion discussion if you are interested or do not wish the file to be deleted. Thank you. 50.100.189.29 (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Twa-529-linkage.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Twa-529-linkage.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Continental Airlines Flight 1883 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Continental Airlines Flight 1883 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Continental Airlines Flight 1883 (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)