Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:Dcoetzee

2010-10-03T08:45:33Z

C-processor: /* When making changes to scientific articles you have to understand the subject */

'''Archives:'''

* [[User talk:Dcoetzee/Archive 2007 2 21|2003 – 2007/2/21]]
* [[User talk:Dcoetzee/Archive 2009 4 15|2007/2/22 – 2009/4/15]]
* [[User talk:Dcoetzee/Archive 2009 9 8|2009/4/16 – 2009/9/8]]

==Yes, already==
Hi. There's a question at MCQ that I'm worried is going to archive without answer. Can you help or point me to somebody who might? [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Okay use or derivative work?]] --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 14:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
:Done, hope it helps. :-) [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 07:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
::Thank you! And here I am again, cluttering your clean page. It looks like [[WP:CCI]] may go live soon. I've got a question about the ContributionSurveyor program at [[Wikipedia_talk:Contributor_copyright_investigations#A_couple_of_questions|its talk page]]. Your input, I expect, would be invaluable. :) --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 18:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
:::Hmm, could you point me to the specific question? I didn't spot it. Maybe you linked to the wrong section? Thanks. :-) [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 06:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

==[[Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron]] invitation==
I loved your article [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Overturned speedy deletions]] and mentioned it here: [[Wikipedia talk:Article_Rescue Squadron#Speedy deletion open request for comment and pages]] How did you gather that information from the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=&year=&month=-1 deletion log]? What tools did you use? Please give me as much details as possible, because I would love to mimic your study.

You maybe interested in a project I am a member of.

{| style="border-spacing:2px; margin:0px" width="100%"
{| class="MainPageBG" style="width: 55%; border:1px solid #FCF2D9; background-color:#FFF; color:#FFF;font-size: 90%"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="background-color:#E2E7FF"
! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#F4F7FA; border:1px solid red; text-align:left; color:#082840; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.4em; padding-bottom: 0.4em; padding-right: 0.4em;">[[File:Barnstar search rescue.png|left|70px|WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron]] Hello, Dcoetzee. You have been invited to [[Wikipedia:ARS#How to become a member of Article Rescue Squadron|join]] the [[WP:ARS|Article Rescue Squadron]], a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing. For more information, please visit the [[Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron|project page]], where you can [[Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Members#All_Members|>> join <<]] and help rescue [[:Category:Articles tagged for deletion and rescue|articles tagged for deletion and rescue]]. [[User:Ikip|Ikip]] ([[User talk:Ikip|talk]]) 06:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
|}</div>


[[User:Ikip|Ikip]] ([[User talk:Ikip|talk]]) 06:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
:{{wikithanks|Thank you for your response on [[Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron]], I was afaid you would say "manually" [[User:Ikip|Ikip]] ([[User talk:Ikip|talk]]) 19:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)}}

==Copyright problems?==
Hi. [[Interceptor pattern]] is tagged as a copyvio of [http://www.cs.uu.nl/docs/vakken/no/interceptor.pdf], apparently based on the tables. I'm not able to assess the creativity of that material, hence its usability. Can you take a look? On a related note, there is an outstanding section on whether "instruction sets" are copyrightable at [[Wikipedia_talk:CP#Copyrightable.3F|WT:CP]]. Um, ? --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 14:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
:Hey. :-) It looks like a clear copyvio to me. Compare page 8 of the slides with the intro paragraph. To a lesser extent page 16 resembles the second paragraph. The example is also clearly lifted directly from the slides - compare pages 23-28 to the code in example section, they're identical. I'll comment on CP. :-) [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 06:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
==Commons deletion debate?==
Hi. Has [[:Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Azerbaijan Navy.jpg|this one]] been archived without closure, do you think? It's been sitting there for an awfully long time. :/ --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 13:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
:Nope. Commons always has a really long deletion backlog. See [[:Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/2009/08/13]]. I should probably help clean it up sometime. :-) [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 18:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

==WP:CANVASS addition==

Hi there. Regarding your addition to [[WP:CANVASS]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Canvassing&curid=7406238&diff=328712745&oldid=328640971 here], I agree with this addition. Good thinking, and good phrasing. [[User:Tanthalas39|'''Tan''']] | [[User talk:Tanthalas39|39]] 02:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
:Thanks! It was just a thought that crossed my mind while reading it and it seemed uncontroversial. Hopefully it'll prove to be so. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 11:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

==Derivative work?==
[[:File:SCPA Historical Marker.PNG]]? (being all pithy :)) If so, what to do? PUF? --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 20:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
:Hey. :-) That's almost certainly unfree. It's created by the state government of Ohio, which does not typically release its work into the public domain. It's in the US, where there is no freedom of panorama, so we're violating the copyright of the designer of the sign. Additionally, the text on the sign is legible and extensive, so we're violating the copyright of the writer (and this would probably apply even in a typical nation with FoP). I'd take it to PUF just because it's sufficiently complicated, but it seems like a sure delete to me. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 01:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
::Thank you. I'll talk to the image uploader first, about potentially G7ing it. We're in communication about some pretty extensive text issues at the moment. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 14:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

==Yes, another question==
I'm trying to figure out PD status of some images that were published in a 1932 book. The initial conversation is at [[User_talk:Moonriddengirl#Quick_question_about_copyright|my talk page]].

Brief story:
*The book is an autobiography of Dane [[Christian Klengenberg]], who died in 1931. It was published in London and Toronto in 1932 by Canadian editor [[Tom MacInnes]], who died in 1951. It was also published in the US--unknown if it was within 30 days of original publication. Copyright was never renewed in the US. [[User:Jayvdb]] thinks there may be a good case for Canada as place of first publication, given the editor's nationality.

*The book contains photographs of the subject. No photographer is identified for them.

*As I understand it, if the book was first published in London and the photographer is unknown, it would be PD in the UK "70 years from end of year taken, or made available to the public if within 70 years of creation", according to [http://www.lr.mdx.ac.uk/copyright/index.htm], which would miss the 1996 cut off and (I believe) keep the photographs copyrighted in the US under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. If the book was first published in Canada, I think, given that the photographer is unknown they would be PD either 50 years following publication or 75 years after the photograph was taken, whichever comes first (according to [[:commons:commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Material_in_the_public_domain|Commons]]), either of which would make them PD by January 1996.

Would photographs from an unknown photographer published in this book be accepted on Commons? --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 14:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

:May not need your input anymore. :) [[User:Physchim62]] weighs in at my talk page with the [[rebuttable presumption]] of copyright in the author and also suggests simultaneous publication in UK and Canada, as well as copyright concerns with the Danes. Unless you disagree that the images are unusable, this one may be over. :) --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 16:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

::Hey - this is a somewhat difficult case. The relevant tags at Commons would be [[:commons:Template:PD-UK-unknown]], [[:commons:Template:PD-Canada]], and [[:commons:Template:PD-US-not renewed]]. I think you can make a good case that all three of these apply in this case, but as you say, the URAA restored copyright in the US. The state of the URAA is an unsettled matter on Commons, see [[:commons:Commons:Licensing#Uruguay_Round_Agreements_Act]]. I'd say you ''could'' upload this (and tag with [[:commons:Template:Not-PD-US-URAA]]) but I wouldn't recommend it unless you have some really compelling reason to. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 06:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
:::Thanks. I will pass that on. :) --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 13:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

==Unreferenced BLPs==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]] Hello Dcoetzee! Thank you for your contributions. I am a [[WP:BOT|bot]] alerting you that '''2''' of the articles that you created are tagged as[[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources| Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons]]. Please note that all biographies of living persons '''must be sourced'''. If you were to add [[WP:RELIABLE|reliable]], [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary]] [[WP:SOURCES|sources]] to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current ''[[:Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs|{{PAGESINCATEGORY:All_unreferenced_BLPs}}]]'' article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{tl|unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

# [[John Adams (Ohio politician)]] - {{findsources|John Adams (Ohio politician)}}
# [[Richard Adams (Ohio politician)]] - {{findsources|Richard Adams (Ohio politician)}}
Thanks!--[[User:DASHBot|DASHBot]] ([[User talk:DASHBot|talk]]) 23:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

==Commons image question==
Hi, and Happy New Year. :) There's a question about an image on Commons at my userpage that you may be better able to address than I. Can you take a look at [[User_talk:Moonriddengirl#How_do_I_tag_commons_media_for_requested_deletion.3F|it]] and weigh in or take any action that seems necessary? --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 17:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
:Well, that one resolved swiftly already. :D So as not to have wasted your time in reading this altogether, might I ask you to take a look at [[:File:Roundel of the Slovenian Air Force.png]] and [[:File:Roundel of the Slovenian Air Force.svg]] and determine what if anything should be done with them? The uploader is certainly not the copyright holder, but I do not know Commons' stance on images of that kind. If they need to be retagged or other handled, can you help out? The contributor's other images are listed at [[:Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Slovenian military-patriot]]. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 16:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
::Hey, sorry for the slow response! I'll take a look at this now. :-) [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 12:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
::The image [[:File:Roundel of the Slovenian Air Force.png]] is definitely a difficult case. It's unlikely of course that the uploader is the copyright holder (most likely the Slovenian Air Force itself is) but the image may be so simple as to fall under [[:commons:Template:PD-ineligible]]. Alternatively, works of the Slovenian government may be public domain (I doubt it, but I can't find any information on Slovenian copyright law). There's no harm in nominating it, but it would likely be kept, if only on the PD-ineligible theory. Hope this helps, and hope you're well. :-) [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 12:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
:::I'm doing fine, and glad to see you. :) I hope you're well also. I did not nominate it with the others because I thought it might be ineligible for copyright protection, but since images are not my main area thought to check with you. Given your response, I'll just leave it be. I've got plenty of others to work on. :D --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 12:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

==CCI image outstanding issue==
Hi. Mer-C requests review of a couple of images at [[Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations#Requests]] (the ones for Blackknight12). Can you take a look and weigh in there? I believe most if not all of them should be clear, but because of my previous interactions with the contributor would prefer somebody else evaluate them. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 14:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
:Done. :-) You're right, I think they are all okay. Hope this helps. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 00:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

==William Burton and Hollar==

I've figured this one out, but it is tricky: see [[Talk:William Burton]]. I have just created [[William Burton (antiquary)]] but that is the one who the portrait is not of. I can create the correct other antiquary [[William Burton (antiquary d.1657)]] any time I see that it is not going to be an orphan. [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] ([[User talk:Charles Matthews|talk]]) 14:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
:Great, thanks for helping sort this out! I certainly never would have guessed there were two antiquaries named William Burton who were contemporaries. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 02:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

== NPG ==

So, what happened to that legal issue? Did they give up? [[User:Pohta ce-am pohtit|Pcap]] [[User_talk:Pohta ce-am pohtit|ping]] 05:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
:No new news as far as I know - WMF may have received direct correspondence from NPG, however. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 05:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

== Region-based memory allocation ==

Hi, regarding [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Region-based_memory_allocation]], can you please not create multiple redirects to an article that doesn't exist? Thanks. --[[User:Closedmouth|Closedmouth]] ([[User talk:Closedmouth|talk]]) 13:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
:Er, I was in the process of writing that article at the time, which was a taxing process involving a lot of research, so it took a while. Maybe I should have created the redirects afterwards to avoid confusing anyone. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 13:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
::Oops, look like I accidentally slightly changed the name of the final article and forgot to update the redirects. Sorry about that! [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 13:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
:::Thanks. I'm aware that people like to create redirects to articles they haven't written yet, so I usually leave those for a couple of days, especially if there's more than one. So yeah. I've forgotten what my point was. Bye. --[[User:Closedmouth|Closedmouth]] ([[User talk:Closedmouth|talk]]) 13:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
::::Thanks for noticing this, I might have forgotten about checking those redirects otherwise. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 14:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

== wp:quote talk ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Quotations&diff=349535627&oldid=349533092 Seems] like you support the idea. Feel free to move your comment so it is more [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Quotations&diff=next&oldid=349760867 readable].[[Special:Contributions/174.3.107.176|174.3.107.176]] ([[User talk:174.3.107.176|talk]]) 05:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
:No, I'd rather not. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 23:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

==Math stuff==
Hi. :) There's a math article at CP today, [[Mesor]]. I don't have the math background to assess the creativity there. Can you take a look? --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 14:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
:Cleaned it. :-) This is really more of a medical analysis thing, but the copyvio was pretty obvious (I'm particularly annoyed at the idea of copying references without reading them from a website that isn't even primarily about the topic of the article...). [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 22:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
==Updates to copyright instructions==
Hi. Based on some feedback I've received, I've updated the instructions at [[WP:SCV]] and [[WP:CP]]. I've left a more indepth explanation at [[Wikipedia talk:Suspected copyright violations#Header update]] along with a request for feedback. As we try to get more people involved in this work, we want to be sure instructions are clear. Given your work, your input there would be very much appreciated. :) [[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 13:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
:Thank you for clarifying this. :-) It certainly was helpful to me to read. Hopefully it'll help others too. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 04:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

==Connected Components==
Hi Derrick.
The definition of a connected component on the following page is incorrect: [[Connected_component_(graph_theory)]].
It states: "In graph theory, a connected component of an undirected graph is a subgraph in which any two vertices are connected to each other by paths, and to which no more vertices or edges can be added while preserving its connectivity." However, "or edges" part of that sentence needs to be removed, as it is not true. Edges can be added to a connected component, while preserving its connectivity.
See the NIST definition that you referred to: [http://www.itl.nist.gov/div897/sqg/dads/HTML/connectedComponents.html] which says: "such that no vertex of D can be added to S and it still be strongly connected". It does not say that edges cannot be added. Connected components of an undirected graph are not necessarily complete subgraphs; therefore edges can be added between nodes of the graph without threatening its status as a connected component. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/204.15.64.187|204.15.64.187]] ([[User talk:204.15.64.187|talk]]) 21:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC) 
:You are both correct and also missing the point. Edges can be added to a graph which enlarge the edge set of some connected component. However, a connected component must ''partition'' the set of edges in the underlying graph - there cannot be any edge in the full graph which does not belong to a connected component of that graph. This is precisely what is implied by the statement that "no more edges can be added while preserving its connectivity." To consider a hypothetical example, a cycle graph may be divided into two "components" each containing half the cycle, and these two "components" together contain all vertices. They are not valid connected components because there are two edges in the underlying graph which are in neither component (in fact this graph has only one connected component).
:Part of the confusion here may stem from the fact that the definition is not describing a partitioning of a graph into connected components, but rather defining a ''single'' connected component. In any case I've attempted to clarify the article. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 19:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

==Image question at my talk page==
Hi, Derrick. There's an image question at my talk page dealing with possibly copyright expired UK images and the impact on them of the URAA and CTEA. There seems to be some divergence between policy and practice (well, guideline, but I couldn't resist the alliteration) here, and I wanted to check with you to see if you can help answer the question. It's [[User_talk:Moonriddengirl#URAA.2C_US_copyright.2C_and_such|here]]. I'd be most grateful. :D --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 17:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

==Pestering you, as always==
Hi. :D We're trying to figure out how non-admins can note that a CCI is ready to close. Can you determine if the last suggestion at [[Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations#How to flag an investigation complete]] is plausible? It's been sitting since the 7th, but nobody who knows 'bout such things has happened by. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 19:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

:Could I also draw your attention to [[Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations#Listing generation question]], which seems to have your name on it. Thanks. --[[User:Tagishsimon|Tagishsimon]] [[User_talk:Tagishsimon|(talk)]] 16:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

==Thank You ==

{| style="border: 1px solid black; background-color: red; color:yellow"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:HumanSexualityBarnstar.png|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|Human Sexuality Barnstar]] '''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid black;" | Thank you for your heroic efforts fixing the damage done to articles by image deletion, [[User:Simonxag|Simon Speed]] ([[User talk:Simonxag|talk]]) 23:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
|}
:Thank you, I'm glad to help. :-) I hope going forward we'll see no more deletions of images that are in use for an educational purpose like these. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 00:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

== lady, snow keep ==

You ''don't'' get to close afds early. Snow keep is ''not'' a policy, and AFD is not a vote. DRV coming your way.- [[User_talk:Wolfkeeper|''Wolfkeeper'']] 03:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:Suit yourself. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 16:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
::I would not have phrased it as adversarially as Wolfkeeper, but I agree that [[WP:SNOW]] was not applicable in this case. Would you consider reopening the AfD so that we don't have to go through DRV? [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] [[User talk:LtPowers|T]] 13:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:::It already went through DRV, where the closure was endorsed: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_June_2]. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 13:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

== Funnel sort ==

I've started a draft at [[User:Gwern/Funnel sort]]. --[[User talk:Gwern |Gwern]] [[Special:Contributions/Gwern | (contribs)]] 18:26 17 June 2010 (GMT)

== [automatically accepted] ==

I want to ask a question about the “'''latest accepted revision'''” of pages on English Wikipedia. Does this option prevent me from seeing the latest version ''by default'' that was not marked as an ''accepted revision''? --[[User:Mahmudmasri|Mahmudmasri]] ([[User talk:Mahmudmasri|talk]]) 05:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:There is a preference to always see the latest version by default. See Pending changes in your preferences. 06:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks, I'll see it. --[[User:Mahmudmasri|Mahmudmasri]] ([[User talk:Mahmudmasri|talk]]) 07:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

==Commons image?==
Hi, Derrick. It's been forever since I've run into you. I keep an eye out, but evidently my timing has been bad. :) In any event, when I got a question about a Commons image on my talk page, it seemed a perfect excuse to drop by and say hi in context of asking your feedback. :D Could you take a look at [[User talk:Moonriddengirl#Help with an image]]? The uploader of [[:File:6 commando adour raid 1942.jpg]] is now concerned that he may have inadvertently licensed it incorrectly, and he is most anxious to do the right thing. Hi! --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 17:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:And since I'm already bothering you, um, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Millennium_Prize_Problems&diff=prev&oldid=369808717 what]? (No, I mean, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Code&diff=prev&oldid=369631588 what]? Really, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Time_complexity&diff=prev&oldid=369806950 what]?) Does any of that make sense? </puzzled> --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 21:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
::Hey, good to hear from you. :-) All of those edits have been reverted. In the first edit, they claimed that they solved a long-standing open problems in computer science and that the source code they're pasting is the solution (in actuality it's not even remotely relevant). In the second edit they pasted a bunch of... what appear to be menu specifications into the general article on codes (which is completely unrelated). In the third they posted the same code as in the first one to a different article - it's still meaningless and irrelevant. They appear to be some crazy troll. :-) [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]]
:::Thank you. :) When I saw that similar edits had been permitted to stand for a day, I wasn't sure if it was because they weren't noticed or because there was something to them. It didn't look constructive to me, but.... Well, what do I know? :) If it says its related to computers, that is. And thanks for your feedback at my talk page question, too. :D --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 10:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

==Thanks==
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moonriddengirl&curid=13355131&diff=372283438&oldid=372281688 Things get a bit sprawly] sometimes. :) --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 21:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
:Glad to help. :-) [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 21:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

==Request==
Hi, Derrick. I know you're a busy fellow, but I'm wondering if you would mind watchlisting [[User:Pohick2]]. He is currently indefinitely blocked for copyright infringements (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive623#User:Pohick2_indef-block_review ANI thread]). He has yet to indicate even a desire to be unblocked, but since he may (he has certainly been a dedicated contributor) it would be good to have an experienced copyright admin who can work with him. There have been several conversations with him in the past, but the most extensive I've had is at [[User talk:Pohick2/Archive/#Copyright concerns]] and subsequent, in case you're wondering what ground has already been covered. I think that having a fresh person to talk to might be beneficial should he decide to consider resuming his account. Our last conversation, I'm afraid, didn't end well. :/ --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 01:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
:Done :-) [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 07:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

== Context ==

Hello. Please look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cantor%27s_intersection_theorem&diff=373743498&oldid=373656789 this edit]. I don't think the phrase "In real analysis,..." has the effect of telling the lay reader that mathematics is what the article is about. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] ([[User talk:Michael Hardy|talk]]) 03:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
:Okay. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 05:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

==Image origin==
Hi. A recently blocked contributor, [[User:Wiki id2]], acknowledged that all of the images he had uploaded under claim of his own authorship were not actually his, except one. Since that one ([[:File:Taha Hussain.PNG]]) was a clear crop, I suggested he upload the complete picture to help prove that he was the photographer. He has now uploaded [[:File:Taha Hussain.jpg]], and requests that we delete it once we are satisfied. Since images are way more your thing, would you mind taking a look? Should that alleviate my concerns about that image? It doesn't have metadata, but looks plausible. Your input would be appreciated. :) --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 17:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
:Hey :-) Based on contributions, I have every reason to suspect that Wiki id2 is a Pakistani person in the same age range as Taha Hussain, so may very well have been in a position to take a photograph of him (he's also himself responsible for the article). The resolution is unusual (it's probably a downscale of the original using some kind of standard photo editing tool, as no real camera would produce an image with this resolution), but it seems legit to me. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 20:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
::Thank you kindly. :) I will not pursue this one further, then, but will regard it as plausible based on this and based on his coming clean, eventually, about the other content. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 19:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

==Happy Dcoetzee's Day!==
{| style="border: 2px ridge #4682B4; -moz-border-radius: 10px; background-color: #EAF5FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 8px; text-align: center;"
|[[Image:Featured article star.svg|150px|none|left]]
|style="padding-left: 20px; padding-right: 10px; font-family: Comic Sans MS, sans-serif; font-size: 9pt; text-align: center;"|
'''[[User:Dcoetzee]]''' has been identified as an '''''Awesome Wikipedian''''', 
and therefore, I've officially declared today as [[User:Rlevse|Dcoetzee's day]]! 
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, 
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Dcoetzee!

Peace, [[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 01:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept [[User:Rlevse/Today/Archive|here]].
|}

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see [[User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day!]] and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — [[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|Talk]] • 01:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
:Thank you, Rlevse. :-) [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 01:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
== Verifiability ==
* {{On AFD|Universal data compression}}
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_data_compression&diff=373216859&oldid=371930172 Because] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_data_compression&diff=370169528&oldid=370107143 you changed the article] so that it no longer matched the sources cited, deletion is being called for yet again, here. Please fix this, citing the source that you had for your different definition, to quash this argument. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 03:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
:If I recall correctly my rewording was based on the references already listed in the article. I just put it in my own words, as we are required to do. If the fact that this is a rewording is unclear, perhaps the explanation is inadequate. If I recall incorrectly, then I can't remember where I found the sources I used, nor how I found them. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 04:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

==Chime in==
Could you chime in here and maybe update the article: [[User_talk:Jesse_Viviano#IPsec]]? Thanks. — [[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|Talk]] • 00:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

==Close paraphrasing?==
Hi, Derrick. :) There's a question at my talk page about the paraphrasing in [[Len Lawson]]. We could use another set of eyes. More information is available at its talk page and at mine, [[User_talk:Moonriddengirl#Copyviolation_or_just_close_paraphrasing_on_Len_Lawson.3F|here]], if you have time. It would, as always, be much appreciated. :) --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 00:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

==Math!==
Yes, me again. :) There's a question at my talk page about whether an article that was once deleted for copyright concerns is now copyright-problem free. For background, see [[Wikipedia:AN#Deletion of Copyrighted Material]]. The question at my talk page is [[User_talk:Moonriddengirl#Thanks_for_your_Reply|here]]; the rewrite is [[Poincaré complex|here]] and the source is [http://eom.springer.de/p/p072990.htm here]. Can you take a look and give feedback at my talk page or at [[User talk:Fly by Night]]? I'd be ever so grateful. :) --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 18:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
:Replied, sorry for the delay. :-) [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 06:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks Dcoetzee! I appreciate you taking the time to help. The use of <math>\scriptstyle \frown</math> in place of <math>\scriptstyle \cap</math> was two-fold. Firstly I think <math>\scriptstyle \frown</math> looks nicer, and secondly the [[cap product]] article uses <math>\scriptstyle \frown</math> insead of <math>\scriptstyle \cap</math>. — [[User:Fly by Night|'''''Fly by Night''''']] ([[User talk:Fly by Night|talk]]) 19:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
:::Thanks, Derrick! You remain a prince among men. :D --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 21:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
::::She's a charmer, isn't she? ☺ — [[User:Fly by Night|'''''Fly by Night''''']] ([[User talk:Fly by Night|talk]]) 21:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::Always :-) Glad to help. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 02:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

== about Willy On Wheels ==

Hello,

I'm french and i tried to read your essay about vandal called "willy on wheels"… but i do not understand everything.
new comer on wikipédia, I cant find the way to find a translator of your essay for the french wikipedia. could you please help me ?

thank you —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/93.15.245.176|93.15.245.176]] ([[User talk:93.15.245.176|talk]]) 11:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC) 
:Does [http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUser%3ADcoetzee%2FWilly_on_Wheels%3AA_Case_Study&sl=en&tl=fr this help]? Since my French is very poor, I do not know if their translation is very good. :) --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 23:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

==Yes, c'est moi==
[[User:Fly by Night]] has found another copyvio in a math related article. It's the last listing at [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 August 21]]. Can I possibly drop this on your lap? The rest of the day (including SCV) is done. I'd appreciate it. :) --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 23:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
:Sorry for the delay, taking a look now. :-) [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 15:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
::See my note there. Could unfortunately not resolve this without access to the source. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 15:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
:::I may have downloaded the pdf at home. I'll take a look tonight and see if I still have it. [[User:VernoWhitney|VernoWhitney]] ([[User talk:VernoWhitney|talk]]) 15:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
::::That would be great, Verno. :) I had the same issue with accessing the source, but I wasn't quite sure if it would be something that might be more obvious to you than to me. I appreciate your looking, Derrick. :) --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 16:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::Okay, I do have the source, and noticed that it's a revised version of the paper located at http://at.yorku.ca/i/d/e/a/35.htm. If none of those formats work for you I can get you the pdf version somehow. [[User:VernoWhitney|VernoWhitney]] ([[User talk:VernoWhitney|talk]]) 01:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::Thanks - I really should've been able to find that as it was cited. The proof was quite long and copied character for character, which is not okay. The definition, like many mathematical definitions, is quite difficult to put in any other words, and that's okay - I rephrased it a bit just to be careful. All clean. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 07:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Thank you both. :) --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 15:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

==DNB WikiProject==

I don't know how interesting this is for you: but [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography]] has just been set up formally. This could be a good place to marry up historical images with articles on their subjects, at least. [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] ([[User talk:Charles Matthews|talk]]) 18:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2]] ==

Because you participated in [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Some Person/The Real Secret Page and Secret Barnstar]], you may be interested in [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2]]. [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 06:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

==Close paraphrasing explanation?==
Hi, Derrick. I am trying to explain close paraphrasing at [[User talk:Trackinfo#Copyright violation]], but it's late in my part of the world. Knowing your familiarity with the issue (not to mention the essay :D), could you drop by and clarify? I'm sure you can explain it more succinctly than I. I'd be grateful. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 00:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
:Oh, I should note, his latest version is much better than his first, but, in my opinion, still follows too closely: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pat_McCormick_%28diver%29&action=historysubmit&diff=384493043&oldid=384490300]. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 00:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
:Done. :-) [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 00:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

==You need a separate talk page just for my requests==
Hi, Derrick.

There's a Commons image copyright question at my talk page, and I am in need of somebody familiar with the ins-and-outs of Commons copyright to help out. If you have an oppportunity, could you weigh in at [[User_talk:Moonriddengirl#Arecibo_Telescope_Photo|this thread]]? If you don't have the opportunity, let me know, and I'll pester somebody else. :D --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] [[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]] 19:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User|Adopt-a-user]] reminder ==

Hello, I have completed a general cleanup of the adopter information page for the adopt-a-user project, located [[Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's_Area/Adopters|here]]. During my cleanup, I have removed several inactive and retired users. In order to provide interested adoptees with an easy location to find adopters, it is essential that the page be up-to-date with the latest information possible. Thus:

* If you are no longer interested in being an adopter, please remove yourself from the list.
* If you are still interested, please check the list to see if any information needs to be updated or added - especially your availability. Thank you.

* You are receiving this message because you are listed as an adopter [[Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's_Area/Adopters|here]].

Delivered by [[User:MessageDeliveryBot|MessageDeliveryBot]] on behalf of [[User:Netalarm|Netalarm]] ([[User talk:Netalarm|talk]]) at 03:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

==Repeated links proposal==
This is [[User:Michael C Price/links|a proposal]] to change the [[WP:REPEATLINK|Repeated links section]] of the MOS. Please edit &/or comment on the talk page as you see fit.

Feel free to move the proposal/discussion straight to the [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (linking)]] if you wish. I just thought we might establish some sort of consensus first, out of the heat and fury over [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (linking)|there]]. --[[User:Michael C Price|Michael C. Price]] [[User talk:Michael C Price|talk]] 10:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

==When making changes to scientific articles you have to understand the subject==
You rearranged sections in arithmetic coding. Do you understand that first part is not clear for anyone who try to become familiar with the subject. It does not matter if it is right or wrong, it does not explain anything. The explanation that arithmetic coding narrows interval on every step is right or meaningless. People need to understand where compression comes from. Why narrowing down interval leads to shorter message? Why this shorter message is shortest possible? And how to restore message back from final interval? Besides that, first section does not mention that compression occur by choosing shortest fraction from final interval and not from narrowing down the interval itself. I wrote that sections that you moved down. I actually don't care if you remove them or not because I explained everything on my web site, which shown by Google on the first page even before wiki. Did you write your own arithmetic coder ever? I wrote several coders in open source that are used by people. If you want to arithmetic coding via narrowing interval starting from [0,1) that is fine, but explain how to encode, decode, explain why it is numerically stable and converge and what is the limit to which it converges. It takes two pages of printed text to explain this and reader needs to know high school math to understand it but it requires high level on understanding to be able to explain it. [[User:C-processor|C-processor]] ([[User talk:C-processor|talk]]) 08:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

If it is your explanation on the top part of arithmetic coding section I can tell you that even Claude Shannon would not understand it in 1948 if he read it. It may be correct but useless. You know the joke how two guys got lost at see on the boat and met another boat with fisherman. They asked "where are we" and got the answer "you are in the boat". They decided that fisherman was mathematician because the answer was precise but useless, so this is upper part of the article. You can make the whole article useless by removing my section and will have more readers on my site.

User talk:Dcoetzee

2010-10-03T08:25:37Z

C-processor:

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

2010-09-21T16:57:37Z

C-processor: /* Polar codes, by Andrew Polar */

{{Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 76
|algo = old(3d)
|archive = Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Archive box|auto=yes|}}

__TOC__
__NEWSECTIONLINK__



== Sources for nutrition issue: Monosodium glutamate ==

The following was written in the main monosodium glutamate article but then constantly removed by three editors: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sciencewatcher sciencewatcher], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dbrodbeck Ddbrodbeck] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sakkura Sakkura].

''On the other side, [[John Olney]], who was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academy of Sciences, stated: "[W]henI first reported that glutamate can kill neurons by exciting them to death, this finding was not only rejected, it was ridiculed by established authority. It required about 15 years before the pendulum began swinging in the other direction. ... it is my belief ... it probably is an occult contributor to neurodevelopmental disabilities in human populations throughout the civilized world."<ref name="University of Iowa">{{Cite| url=http://www.medicine.uiowa.edu/alumni/interviews/olney_john.html| work=Alumni Interview| accessdate=2010-09-13 | title=John Olney, M.D.| first=| last=| date=2008}}</ref> The [[American Academy of Family Physicians]], one of the largest medical organizations in the United States, concludes that an overstimulation by glutamate generally may result in neuronal damage and has been implicated in neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer.<ref name="American Academy of Family Physicians">{{Cite| url=http://www.aafp.org/afp/2004/0315/p1491.html| work=| accessdate=2010-09-13 | title=Memantine (Namenda) for Moderate to Severe Alzheimer’s Disease| first=| last=| date=2004}}</ref>
''Health risks of MSG remain a subject of controversy.''''

Sources were the following:

[http://www.medicine.uiowa.edu/alumni/interviews/olney_john.html University of Iowa]

[http://www.aafp.org/afp/2004/0315/p1491.html American Academy of Family Physicians]

The whole [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monosodium_glutamate#Health_concerns section] reads as follows:

'''Health concerns'''

{{Main|Glutamic acid (flavor)#Research into health effects|l1=Health effects research into Glutamic acid}}

''A report from the [[Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology]] ([[FASEB]]) compiled in [[1995]] on behalf of the [[Food and Drug Administration (United States)|United States Food and Drug Administration]] (FDA) concluded that MSG is safe for most people when “eaten at customary levels”. However, it also said that, based on [[Anecdotal evidence|anecdotal reports]], some people may have an MSG [[food intolerance|intolerance]] that causes “MSG symptom complex” and/or a worsening of [[asthma|asthmatic symptoms]].<ref>[http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/msg.html FDA Backgrounder: FDA and Monosodium Glutamate]</ref> Other research published in the "Journal of Nutrition" found that, while large doses of MSG given without food may elicit more symptoms than a placebo in individuals who believe that they react adversely to MSG, the frequency of the responses was low and the responses reported were inconsistent, not reproducible, and not observed when MSG was given with food.<ref name="geha"/> No [[association (statistics)|statistical association]] has been demonstrated under controlled conditions, even in studies with people convinced that they are sensitive to it.<ref name="geha">
{{cite journal
| author = Geha RS, Beiser A, Ren C, ''et al.''
| title = Review of alleged reaction to monosodium glutamate and outcome of a multicenter double-blind placebo-controlled study
| journal = J. Nutr.
| volume = 130
| issue = 4S Suppl
| pages = 1058S–62S
| year = 2000
| month = April
| pmid = 10736382
| doi =
| url = http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=10736382}}</ref><ref name="Tarasoff">
{{cite journal
| author = Tarasoff L., Kelly M.F.
| title = Monosodium L-glutamate: a double-blind study and review
| journal = Food Chem. Toxicol.
| volume = 31
| issue = 12
| pages = 1019–1035
| year = 1993
| pmid = 8282275
| doi = 10.1016/0278-6915(93)90012-N
}}
</ref><ref>
{{cite journal
| author = Freeman M.
| title = Reconsidering the effects of monosodium glutamate: a literature review
| journal = J Am Acad Nurse Pract
| volume = 18
| issue = 10
| pages = 482–6
| year = 2006
| month = October
| pmid = 16999713
| doi = 10.1111/j.1745-7599.2006.00160.x
| url =
}}
</ref><ref>{{cite journal
| author = Walker R
| title = The significance of excursions above the ADI. Case study: monosodium glutamate
| journal = Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol.
| volume = 30
| issue = 2 Pt 2
| pages = S119–S121
| year = 1999
| month = October
| pmid = 10597625
| doi = 10.1006/rtph.1999.1337
| url = }}</ref> Adequately controlling for experimental bias includes a [[placebo-controlled studies|placebo-controlled]] [[blind experiment|double-blind]] experimental design and the application in capsules because of the strong and unique after-taste of glutamates.<ref name="Tarasoff" />

''On the other side, [[John Olney]], who was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academy of Sciences, stated: "[W]henI first reported that glutamate can kill neurons by exciting them to death, this finding was not only rejected, it was ridiculed by established authority. It required about 15 years before the pendulum began swinging in the other direction. ... it is my belief ... it probably is an occult contributor to neurodevelopmental disabilities in human populations throughout the civilized world."<ref name="University of Iowa">{{Cite| url=http://www.medicine.uiowa.edu/alumni/interviews/olney_john.html| work=Alumni Interview| accessdate=2010-09-13 | title=John Olney, M.D.| first=| last=| date=2008}}</ref> The [[American Academy of Family Physicians]], one of the largest medical organizations in the United States, concludes that an overstimulation by glutamate generally may result in neuronal damage and has been implicated in neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer.<ref name="American Academy of Family Physicians">{{Cite| url=http://www.aafp.org/afp/2004/0315/p1491.html| work=| accessdate=2010-09-13 | title=Memantine (Namenda) for Moderate to Severe Alzheimer’s Disease| first=| last=| date=2004}}</ref>
''Health risks of MSG remain a subject of controversy.''''

Since the issue of possible health concerns connected to MSG is, indeed, an issue of controversy as it can be seen in {{Main|Glutamic acid (flavor)#Research into health effects|l1=Health effects research into Glutamic acid}} the main MSG page section should reflect a short summary of that controversy not just one side of the issue.
Also, the sources for the critical side of the issue are reliable.

Sakkura, Ddrodbeck and sciencewatcher claim these sources were not good, and were violating the weight which must be given to specific positions. I disagree. And others before me did too. If you see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Monosodium_glutamate talk page] of the issue, it becomes evident that user sciencewatcher i. e. has removed all content in the past, which questioned the safety of MSG. But wikipedia should not become a place for industry agenda-pushing.

There is also a dispute about the source EUFIC. EUFIC is linked to under [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monosodium_glutamate&diff=384642079&oldid=384628313 External Links] with the description "The facts on Monosodium Glutamate" (it has been changed by me, but will probably be reverted). EUFIC's funders, however, include: Coca-Cola, DSM Nutritional Products Europe Ltd., Ferrero, Groupe Danone, Kraft Foods, McDonald's, Nestlé, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Suedzucker, etc

Sakkura, Ddrodbeck and sciencewatcher consider EUFIC to be a reliable source for nutrition issues nevertheless. They wrote the following:

''Just because there is a conflict of interest in the funding does not make a source "unreliable". We include many drug studies funded by the drug companies themselves (and this is generally noted in the text). The EUFIC website does seem to represent the scientific consensus. --[[User:Sciencewatcher|sciencewatcher]] ([[User talk:Sciencewatcher|talk]]) 18:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

:''Agreed. [[User:Dbrodbeck|Dbrodbeck]] ([[User talk:Dbrodbeck|talk]]) 19:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)''

::''I concur. It should also be noted that EUFIC receives funding from the EU, so it isn't just funded by the industry. [[User:Sakkura|Sakkura]] ([[User talk:Sakkura|talk]]) 21:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)''

So we need an opinion about the validity of three sources:

EUFIC

[http://www.medicine.uiowa.edu/alumni/interviews/olney_john.html University of Iowa]

[http://www.aafp.org/afp/2004/0315/p1491.html American Academy of Family Physicians]

Thx. And I ask the above mentioned editors to stay out of this. Just let third parties decide.[[User:JCAla|—JCAla]] ([[User talk:JCAla|talk]]) 14 September 2010 (UTC)

:Uninvolved user response. These three sources are all quite different. EUFIC is likely to receive much more industry funding than EU funding. It can't really be regarded as scientifically neutral, but is probably OK for an external link. The link should be described correctly. A university interview with an alumnus is not a suitable source for a science article. Moreover, it's not clear that the subject of the article is talking about dietary consumption of glutamate. ''American Family Physician'' is a regular peer-reviewed journal. The issue about using it in a science article is whether an individual article should be regarded as a primary source. Ideally, we are looking for reviews of the literature rather than individual items in the literature. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 10:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, Itsmejudith. If EUFIC (although not reliable) is ok as an external link, then links to NGOs such as [http://www.truthinlabeling.org/ Truth in Labeling] should be also, right? Because such links have been removed by the above users. Truth in Labeling are an NGO campaigning for MSG to be labeled on food containing it.

Also, the university interview was done with [[John Olney]], who was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academy of Sciences. He has campaigned for greater regulation of monosodium glutamate (MSG), aspartame and other excitotoxins for over twenty years. So he is talking about MSG but I see your point that it does not become evident in the linked interview. What about the following source (as a better replacement source)? It was released by the United States General Accounting Office and states:

"Dr. Olney said that large doses of aspartame or combined dosesdoses of aspartame and monosodium glutamate, another food additive, could cause brain damage in infants and young children. He claimed that, based on research done by himself and others, '''L-aspartic acid (a component of aspartame) exhibited the same toxic response in the brain''' '''as exhibited by monosodium glutamate''' in earlier studies. He stated that '''the neurotoxicity (poisonous to the nervous system) of the substances''' is augmented when they are combined. ... Regarding Dr. Olney's objections, '''the Bureau of Foods ... noted''' that''' L-aspartic acid and monosodium glutamate can act similarly and are of about equal potency''' but did not agree that their effect would be augmented when combined." [http://archive.gao.gov/f0402/099382.pdf USGAO source p 9-10]

This should be a valid source. What do you say?

So the three issues to be considered are:

1 If EUFIC as an unreliable source is included under External Links, Truth in Labeling can be included also.

2 The USGAO report explicitly mentions the effects of monosodium glutamate as described by [[John Olney]] and the Bureau of Foods. It constitutes a reliable source and should not be removed when included into a short summary about health concerns in the main monosodium glutamate article.

3 Although the [[American Family Physician]] source may not be ideal, it is still considered valid and reliable and thus should not be removed.

Do you agree on these three points or on some of them?[[User:JCAla|—JCAla]] ([[User talk:JCAla|talk]]) 14 September 2010 (UTC)

:I would say, regarding:
:*1). No, sources should be evaluated individually. [http://www.truthinlabeling.org/ Truth in Labeling] home page says "This Web site is dedicated to people with problems that once defied medical diagnosis -- people who discovered that elimination of MSG from their diets let them be well," so they have a clear bias, and I note that many of the web pages there (all that I visited) lack references to any scientific material (see [http://www.truthinlabeling.org/SomethingToThinkAbout.html this], and [http://www.truthinlabeling.org/formulacopy.html this, which contains data from an unreferenced "canadian study". Clearly not reliable.
:*2). Yes, the USGAO report you mentioned explicitly mentions that Dr. Olney ''claimed'' that monosodium glutamate is harmful, and that he ''claimed'' that conclusion was based on studies done by himself and others. I think it is a primary source that should probably not be used for that reason, could only be used in a very limited way if at all, but it basically reliable in terms of the claims made by Dr. Olney. Whether or not those statements should be in the article on MSG is another question.
:*3). Yes, I think the site may be considered a reliable source, but [http://www.aafp.org/afp/2004/0315/p1491.html this blub] is not appropriate for the [[Monosodium glutamate]] article, since Monosodium glutamate is not mentioned in it. The statement "Overstimulation by glutamate may result in neuronal damage" appears there but is not sourced, and to draw any conclusions about MSG based on that statement would be [[WP:SYNTH]]. But that's another notice board. --[[User:Nuujinn|Nuujinn]] ([[User_talk:Nuujinn|talk]]) 09:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

:: Sorry, but American Family Physician is not the highest quality source, and if it contradicts higher quality medical secondary reviews, should not be used. WRT [[Tourette syndrome]], the AFP physician printed several errors; it just isn't as high quality as some other medical sources. [[User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

:::Just to be clear, I agree that it is not the best source and should not be used if better sources on the same topic are available. --[[User:Nuujinn|Nuujinn]] ([[User_talk:Nuujinn|talk]]) 10:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

1) If a bias is reason for not including an NGO such as Truth in Labeling under External Links, EUFIC should not be included. An organization which evaluates the safety of food products, produced by some of its major funders is not a reliable source and not to be included. Either there are only reliable sources or sources with a bias are allowed. You cannot outrule the bias by one organization and allow the one by another. Agree?

2) Since there are scientists (who enjoy a very high prestige among some scientists) who consider mononatrium glutamate to have considerable health effects, these concerns should be mentioned (if only shortly, but nonetheless mentioned) in a summary about MSG health concerns. Agree? Such a new health concern section could read:

'''Health concerns'''

{{Main|Glutamic acid (flavor)#Research into health effects|l1=Health effects research into Glutamic acid}}

''A report from the [[Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology]] ([[FASEB]]) compiled in [[1995]] on behalf of the [[Food and Drug Administration (United States)|United States Food and Drug Administration]] (FDA) concluded that MSG is safe for most people when “eaten at customary levels”. However, it also said that, based on [[Anecdotal evidence|anecdotal reports]], some people may have an MSG [[food intolerance|intolerance]] that causes “MSG symptom complex” and/or a worsening of [[asthma|asthmatic symptoms]].<ref>[http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/msg.html FDA Backgrounder: FDA and Monosodium Glutamate]</ref> One study published in the "Journal of Nutrition" found that, while large doses of MSG given without food may elicit more symptoms than a placebo in individuals who believe that they react adversely to MSG, the frequency of the responses was low and the responses reported were inconsistent, not reproducible, and not observed when MSG was given with food.<ref name="geha"/> The study stated that no [[association (statistics)|statistical association]] has been demonstrated under controlled conditions, even in studies with people convinced that they are sensitive to it.<ref name="geha">
{{cite journal
| author = Geha RS, Beiser A, Ren C, ''et al.''
| title = Review of alleged reaction to monosodium glutamate and outcome of a multicenter double-blind placebo-controlled study
| journal = J. Nutr.
| volume = 130
| issue = 4S Suppl
| pages = 1058S–62S
| year = 2000
| month = April
| pmid = 10736382
| doi =
| url = http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=10736382}}</ref><ref name="Tarasoff">
{{cite journal
| author = Tarasoff L., Kelly M.F.
| title = Monosodium L-glutamate: a double-blind study and review
| journal = Food Chem. Toxicol.
| volume = 31
| issue = 12
| pages = 1019–1035
| year = 1993
| pmid = 8282275
| doi = 10.1016/0278-6915(93)90012-N
}}
</ref><ref>
{{cite journal
| author = Freeman M.
| title = Reconsidering the effects of monosodium glutamate: a literature review
| journal = J Am Acad Nurse Pract
| volume = 18
| issue = 10
| pages = 482–6
| year = 2006
| month = October
| pmid = 16999713
| doi = 10.1111/j.1745-7599.2006.00160.x
| url =
}}
</ref><ref>{{cite journal
| author = Walker R
| title = The significance of excursions above the ADI. Case study: monosodium glutamate
| journal = Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol.
| volume = 30
| issue = 2 Pt 2
| pages = S119–S121
| year = 1999
| month = October
| pmid = 10597625
| doi = 10.1006/rtph.1999.1337
| url = }}</ref> Adequately controlling for experimental bias includes a [[placebo-controlled studies|placebo-controlled]] [[blind experiment|double-blind]] experimental design and the application in capsules because of the strong and unique after-taste of glutamates.<ref name="Tarasoff" />

''On the other side, scientists like Dr. [[John Olney]], who was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academy of Sciences, stated that monosodium glutamate exhibits a toxic response in the brain.<ref name="U.S. General Accounting Office (USGAO) report">{{Cite| url=http://archive.gao.gov/f0402/099382.pdf | work=U.S. General Accounting Office (USGAO) report| accessdate=2010-09-14 | title=Regulation of the food additive Aspartame. Food and Drug Administration. Department of Health, Education and Welfare| first=| last=| date=2008}}</ref> Regarding Dr. Olney's findings about the neurotoxicity of monosodium glutamate the U.S. Bureau of Foods agreed that monosodium glutamate can act similarly as L-aspartic acid (a component of Aspartame) and both "are of about equal potency".<ref name="U.S. General Accounting Office (USGAO) report">{{Cite| url=http://archive.gao.gov/f0402/099382.pdf | work=U.S. General Accounting Office (USGAO) report| accessdate=2010-09-14 | title=Regulation of the food additive Aspartame. Food and Drug Administration. Department of Health, Education and Welfare| first=| last=| date=2008}}</ref> Health risks of MSG remain a subject of controversy among some experts.<ref name="U.S. General Accounting Office (USGAO) report">{{Cite| url=http://archive.gao.gov/f0402/099382.pdf | work=U.S. General Accounting Office (USGAO) report| accessdate=2010-09-14 | title=Regulation of the food additive Aspartame. Food and Drug Administration. Department of Health, Education and Welfare| first=| last=| date=2008}}</ref>''

Do you consider that version appropriate?
[[User:JCAla|—JCAla]] ([[User talk:JCAla|talk]]) 15 September 2010 (UTC)

:No, I don't, but my feeling is that it is better to have discussion of specific wording of the article on the article's talk page, rather than here. I will point out, however, that I think you are grossly misrepresenting the USGAO report, and suggest you might review [[WP:SYNTH]], BTANB.
:Regarding 1) above, no, I do not agree. Truth in Labeling is clearly not a reliable source, whether or not it is an NGO, and my opinion on that hasn't anything to do with their bias. The "evidence" presented there is not supported by references, and they have no standing as a reliable source in general--claims based on personal email, anonymous quotations, and unnamed studies are simply not reliable, and thus Truth in Labeling is no more reliable than my personal blog.
:Regarding 2), No, but not because I believe that such negative health effect do not exist (aspartame gives me severe headaches, and msg is apparently linked to migraines in some of my friends). The question is what can be properly sourced, and the USGAO report you present does not support the claims in the text above. --[[User:Nuujinn|Nuujinn]] ([[User_talk:Nuujinn|talk]]) 10:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, then we strongly disagree.

Regarding 1): Truth in Labeling does source many of the information they give. See [http://www.truthinlabeling.org/Obesity_Data.html here], [http://www.truthinlabeling.org/Cancer.html here 2], or [http://www.truthinlabeling.org/l-manuscript.html here 3]. They use what you would call reliable scientific sources.

Regarding 2): How do I mispresent the USGAO study? They write: "He [Dr. Olney] claimed that, based on research done by himself and others, L-aspartic acid (a component of aspartame) exhibited the same toxic response in the brain as exhibited by monosodium glutamate in earlier studies. He stated that the neurotoxicity (poisonous to the nervous system) of the substances is augmented when they are combined." I summarized: "[S]cientists like Dr. [[John Olney]], who was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academy of Sciences, stated that monosodium glutamate exhibits a toxic response in the brain." (This is true and mentioned in the USGAO report.) The report further states: "Regarding Dr. Olney's objections, the Bureau of Foods ... noted that L-aspartic acid and monosodium glutamate can act similarly and are of about equal potency but did not agree that their effect would be augmented when combined." I summarized: "Regarding Dr. Olney's findings about the neurotoxicity of monosodium glutamate [should have added: and Aspartame] the U.S. Bureau of Foods agreed that monosodium glutamate can act similarly as L-aspartic acid (a component of Aspartame) and both "are of about equal potency"." (This is true and mentioned in the USGAO report also.)

You guys are very well organized around here. You know the possible effects of MSG as you stated yourself. Everyone makes their own choices in life and is responsible for them. '''If''' you are interested in a correct presentation of the issue then tell me how you would shortly summarize the concerns by some scientists about the health effects.[[User:JCAla|—JCAla]] ([[User talk:JCAla|talk]]) 16 September 2010 (UTC)

:I'm not sure how to answer all of this, but I think most of it isn't relevant to this noticeboard. You're here to ask for feedback about the reliability of sources, and you're getting responses. I'm sorry you don't like them, but that's how it goes sometimes. --[[User:Nuujinn|Nuujinn]] ([[User_talk:Nuujinn|talk]]) 17:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Two questions: 1) why are primary sources being used in that article, and 2) why are such old sources being used? Per [[WP:MEDRS]], the sources should be secondary reviews, not primary sources, and there are plenty available at [[PubMed]]. See [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches|this Dispatch]] for help in locating the kinds of secondary reviews that should be used in medical articles-- using high-quality recent reviews will help avoid disputes. [[User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 18:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This all sounds like cherry-picking. Observing the responses in brain tissue to glutamic acid (as described by Olney and the AAFP sources) does not mean that anyone who ingests glutamic acid is exposed to these harms. To make such claims you would need an experiment where it is proven beyond doubt that dietary GA actually crosses the blood-brain barrier. I therefore think this is a clear example of [[WP:SYNTH]]. Also, please bear in mind that an article published in an AAFP journal ''by no means'' reflects the official opinion of that body! [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]] | [[User_talk:Jfdwolff|T@lk]] 18:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

:This is pretty serious abuse of sources, as Jfdwolff has pointed out. The American Academy of Family Physicians article is about [[memantadine]]. A prescription drug. Olney's interview is about glutamate's neurotoxicity. Neither article is about MSG. Neither even ''mention'' MSG. It is generally agreed that glutamate is an excitotoxin, as Olney initially discovered. It is certainly ''not'' agreed (and not even contended by either source) that ingesting MSG leads to glutamate-induced neurotoxicity. This thread is way too tl;dr, but I'm deeply concerned by the sort of editing I'm perceiving here. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' [[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]] 21:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the discussion as to whether the sources are reliable is irrelevant, what is more relevant is that they are being misused in [[WP:AGF|good faith]], to [[WP:SYN|synthesise]] an original hypothesis, this is original research and I would urge the editor proposing these additions to read the [[WP:NOR|no original research policy]]. Even if they were considered reliable they could not be used the way they are, they do not discuss MSG directly, but rather excess glutamate activity and its role in neurodegenerative diseases. The editor should wait for reliable sources to report on the neurotoxicity potential or lack thereof of MSG.--[[User:Literaturegeek|Literaturegeek]] | [[User_talk:Literaturegeek |''T@1k?'']] 23:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

::In the USGAO report the term monosodium glutamate (MSG) and its possible effect as described by Dr. Olney and the Bureau of Foods is explicitly mentioned. The American Family Physicians article had already been dropped as a source. It is very interesting that none of you has come up with a better suggestion how to include the serious concerns issued by scientists such as Dr. [[John Olney]] or Dr. Russell Blaylock and others. I have considered SandyGeorgia's suggestion about PubMed. Resulting from that research I would now propose the following as text and sources to be added to the health concern section:

''On the other side, health risks of MSG remain a subject of controversy among some experts. One case study found that patients diagnosed with fibromyalgia syndrome for two to 17 years, who had all undergone multiple treatment modalities with limited success, had complete, or nearly complete, resolution of their symptoms within months after eliminating monosodium glutamate (MSG) or MSG plus aspartame from their diet.<ref>{{cite | author = Ann Pharmacother| title = Relief of fibromyalgia symptoms following discontinuation of dietary excitotoxins.| journal = PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE| volume = | issue = | pages = | year = 2001| month =June| pmid =11408989| doi = | url =http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11408989?dopt=Abstract}}</ref> Another study was conducted with self-identified monosodium glutamate (MSG)-sensitive subjects to determine whether they had a statistically significant difference in the incidence of their specific symptoms after ingestion of MSG compared with placebo. Headache, muscle tightness, numbness/tingling, general weakness, and flushing occurred more frequently after MSG than placebo ingestion.<ref>{{cite | author = J Allergy Clin Immunol| title = The monosodium glutamate symptom complex: assessment in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study.| journal = PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE| volume = | issue = | pages = | year = 1997| month =June| pmid =9215242| doi = | url =http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9215242?dopt=Abstract}}</ref> Scientists like Dr. [[John Olney]]<ref name="U.S. General Accounting Office (USGAO) report">{{Cite| url=http://archive.gao.gov/f0402/099382.pdf | work=U.S. General Accounting Office (USGAO) report| accessdate=2010-09-14 | title=Regulation of the food additive Aspartame. Food and Drug Administration. Department of Health, Education and Welfare| first=| last=| date=2008}}</ref>'', ''who was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academy of Sciences, and Dr. Russell Blaylock have campaigned for greater regulation of monosodium glutamate.''

Sources are both from PubMed. Now, is there an agreement about these sources being used as proposed above to improve the MSG article's disputed neutrality?
[[User:JCAla|—JCAla]] ([[User talk:JCAla|talk]]) 17 September 2010 (UTC)

:I fear that one of us is misunderstanding both the purpose of this noticeboard and the policy against [[WP:OR|original research]]. This noticeboard's purpose is not to vet text for an article, that should happen on the article's talk page. You need to try to reach a consensus with other editors there regarding what the article text should be. Regarding [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11408989?dopt=Abstract this]] and [[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9215242?dopt=Abstract this]], I believe, without assessing their quality or value, that they are generally reliable. But they are primary sources, and thus need to be used with care, and we should seek instead to use high quality secondary sources. What is more troubling to me is that your summaries do not accurately reflect the papers' abstracts (I have not read these papers in their entirety). In the first, you fail to mention that the cohort was four patients, that the authors called for further study, and only claimed that elimination of MSG had "the potential for dramatic results in a subset of patients". In the second, you do not mention that the dose of MSG is pretty large <s>nor do you mention that the subjects self-identified as MSG sensitive</s>. It seems to me that your representation of these sources involves sweeping generalizations and pushes a particular point of view--one with with, ironically enough, I am sympathetic, although for which in my own searching about, I have yet to find high quality reliable sources. --[[User:Nuujinn|Nuujinn]] ([[User_talk:Nuujinn|talk]]) 10:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

::Then you obviously did not read carefully what I wrote. I indeed mentioned that the subjects self-identified as MSG sensitive. The author of the first study was impressed by his/her findings that he/she called for further study. So that can be included yet makes no difference to the study's results. I further consider these sources reliable and high quality.[[User:JCAla|—JCAla]] ([[User talk:JCAla|talk]]) 17 September 2010 (UTC)

:::You are correct regarding the self identification, I have struck that part of my comment, please accept my apology for my mistake. But I stand by my assessment that in these summaries you are apparently engaged in OR and are also apparently not interested in presenting the materials at hand with [[WP:DUE|due weight]] and a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]]. I would also suggest that it might be time to take a look at [[WP:IDHT]]. What you really need to make your point is a secondary source from a reliable source that assesses from reliable primary sources, but that's a topic for other venues. You have my opinion and that of others--the question is, what will you do with those? I will be interested to see. --[[User:Nuujinn|Nuujinn]] ([[User_talk:Nuujinn|talk]]) 14:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

: Regarding EUFIC it should go as per [[WP:EL]]. [[User:Richiez|Richiez]] ([[User talk:Richiez|talk]]) 08:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

JCAlahe the sources are an improvement as they are not synthesising but they are still primary sources. Primary sources can be considered reliable sources if used cautiously but secondary sources are generally considered better sources. [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=J7ei9UHS8uYC&pg=PA43 This source] and [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7We1IMLEN5oC&pg=PA716 this source] would probably be better choices of sources, rather than citing primary research studies. Here are [http://www.google.co.uk/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=%22The+monosodium+glutamate+symptom+complex%3A+assessment+in+a+double-blind%2C+placebo-controlled%2C+randomized+study%22&btnG=Search+Books other secondary sources] and [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&tbo=1&tbs=bks%3A1&q=%22Relief+of+fibromyalgia+symptoms+following+discontinuation+of+dietary+excitotoxins%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= some more] for review. Not all will be as reliable as one another, check publisher and author for quality of books if using as secondary sources in articles.--[[User:Literaturegeek|Literaturegeek]] | [[User_talk:Literaturegeek |''T@1k?'']] 11:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
:No matter my opinion regarding primary and secondary sources ... thanks for the hint, Literaturegeek.[[User:JCAla|—JCAla]] ([[User talk:JCAla|talk]]) 19 September 2010 (UTC)

== Does typical WP practice demand "plagiarism lite", and does it matter? ==

I would like to ask if others are sometimes uncomfortable with the following, and whether anyone has any practical suggestions about it. The most common scenario is something like this made-up case:- "this online review article looks well-written and well-sourced, great, but because RS debate is possible you should just use its handy bibliography for what you wanted to put in and not mention what led you there". Sound familiar?

Even when people then get copies of the articles in said bibliography (as per [[WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT]]) in many cases of course, what ends up being put into Wikipedia is structured and worded in ways which are ''inspired by'' the helpful author of the good but potentially questioned source. However, editors are effectively told not to say so. (Indeed many are presumably doing this the whole time and not talking about it.) Structuring of subject matter, simple observations, basic ways of explaining uncontroversial things, are often not "OR", raise no red flags, and their sources are hard to prove, so no one cares where they come from. But if such influences are so uncontroversial why is being honest about it considered such a no-no?

I was recently involved in an example where a sourced quotation which had been subject to some questionable RS debate was removed, and a re-written sentence openly intended to capture something in the old material was then inserted without sourcing. The wording change possibly improves the article, and is (and was!) obvious enough not to ''need'' special sourcing, but I don't feel good about the ''deliberate'' lack of attribution.

In academic literature one still sees authors who are correct enough to quote a source as something that they read in another source. Indeed this is often quite useful. In WP, it seems odd to see people on WP argue quite strongly sometimes that an apparently good source should be used indirectly and without attribution supposedly due to WP rules. In reality of course what people mean is that it is better to avoid a long RS debate about how the WP rules ''might'' apply, and to find a "path of least resistance".

Just trying to think why this is happening, it occurs to me that it is relevant that if you put words in an article without sourcing, then someone needs to actually look at the content and understand it before they can judge if they need more sourcing. Feedback is likely to be informed in such cases. OTOH, if you try very hard to mention all sources, you can expect "feedback" which is generalized and awkward to deal with: based not on any reading of the content but upon quick browsing for theoretical sourcing warning signs. Are the incentives wrong?--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 13:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

:I'm not sure that I understand the question, so let me tell you what I'm hearing:
:* You read Mary's paper.
:* Mary's paper cites John's book.
:* You read John's book.
:* You write about the subject, and cite John's book.
:This is 100% acceptable: It is not necessary to document how you found John's book, or how many other sources you read before writing a sentence.
:What's ''not'' acceptable is to read Mary and then falsely claim that you read John. If you only read Mary, you must cite Mary. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
:: I agree with WhatamIdoing. There's an unwritten rule when blogging to make sure to mention the intermediate steps (the ubiquitous "hat tip") but while that's of some importance to bloggers who are looking to take credit for their blogging, it is not an issue when assembling encyclopedic content. Having said that, if I felt that Mary's paper was the key to finding the info in John's book, I might try to find a way to cite Mary, if it could be done without compromising integrity.--[[User:Sphilbrick|SPhilbrick]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|T]] 16:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
:::I think the two responses are both looking at the most controversial type of example. I'll try doing a rewrite of WhatamIdoing's useful summary which is both based on real (but more messy) experience and also more designed to show how this can become more ethically dubious in more realistic and less extreme cases:
:::*You read Mary's paper. You consider it an RS.
:::*Mary's paper reviews works by 10 authors in a particular are of research, categorizes them in a neat uncontroversial way, and gives some neat comments about them which are not particularly controversial but handy nevertheless.
:::*You make an WP article citing Mary's paper as a source. You use Mary's neat way of summarizing the field, as well as some of her observations.
:::*Another editor arrives and a content debate ensues during which the editor claims Mary's paper is not a good enough RS. Let's say for example the field is a quite technical one and Mary published in a less technical journal (not a blog). Let's say the visiting editor cites [[WP:REDFLAG]] for example.
:::*After some circular discussions the two of you come to the practical compromise of getting around silly debate by simply pretending Mary is not a source, but instead the 50 authors. Direct quotes are simply reworded into new words that mean the same thing.
:::*When the visiting editor sees what the result looks like after simply deleting mention of Mary, they are satisfied there is now no sourcing problem because nothing stands out as the kind of thing you would tag as needing a source. Nothing adapted from Mary was controversial. (Yes, this raises the question of why redflag was incited, but in the real WP, people are not always that consistent and you have to get past an argument.)
:::*Let's say for the sake of making a clear example that you have actually read the 50, but the person who insisted on deleting mention of Mary has not and was basically a visitor to the article who noticed a perceived sourcing issue but does not really know the field.
:::*Let's say this editor is unable to debate what is really controversial in the field and so simply takes a hard line of saying redflag can be assumed to be relevant whenever an article in a less technical journal seems to be trying to review something in a more technical field.
:::*The implied defense of this compromise is that deleting mention of the source was OK because everything Mary wrote might have been arrived at by someone reading the 50 authors.
:::It seems to me that if an academic or student got caught plagiarizing and gave this excuse it would be laughable?--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 12:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
:::: It would be, because the academic wouldn't have to deal with drive-by editors. We do. Our work is the product of committee, so we must make compromises. If you want to soothe your conscience, you can remind yourself that we are quite different from academics or students, because they are expected to do original research. We're specifically forbidden to. An academic who writes what would be a Wikipedia featured article as a dissertation will rightly be criticised because it has no original work or at least analysis. All our work is required to be copied, and we are not allowed to enter our opinion. That's a much greater difference from academia. --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] ([[User talk:GRuban|talk]]) 23:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
::::: Hmmm. But just considering WP's own statements "to itself" so to speak, isn't this also a case where we break our own "rules"? Consider [[WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT]]. Of course BTW I would not think this subject interesting if it was something that happened here and there ''at random''. The pressures and incentives (including the way things like this noticeboard can work, or be worked, sometimes) appear to me to create a positive tendency towards this particular type of compromise at the expense of principles like [[WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT]]. I'd even go one step further and hypothesize that there are probably people who have learnt from the same pressures simply to avoid sourcing as much as possible, as a way to avoid drawing attention from drive-by editors in the first place.--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 14:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::: I'll call your hypothesis and raise: there are definitely people who have learnt not to edit the Wikipedia at all due to its multitudinous slings and arrows, and this one is by no means the most painful. But ... where does this lead? If you have a specific workable suggestion, please propose it. Just "say where you got it" doesn't work, because the article doesn't have just one owner/author, there is just the amorphous Wikipedia community, that can edit it at any time, and often do. Just because editor A got the information from source Bar by reading about it in Foo which references Bar, doesn't mean editor B can't get the same information from Bar directly. Does that mean that editor B isn't allowed to delete the reference to Foo, even though Foo isn't a reliable source, and the article now contains no information that directly depends on Foo, just because someone else who once edited the article once read Foo? --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] ([[User talk:GRuban|talk]]) 22:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::: People leaving WP no longer affect WP. I think you are missing the point that I am noting cases where WP accepted habits seem to be pushing people to break WP's own stated policy, on WP. Your scenario section seems to amount to saying that no one will normally notice the plagiarism?--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 15:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

== Jackie Evancho Forum Reference ==

I have recently gotten into a debate with [[User:1archie99]] about the inclusion of [http://jackieevanchos.org/showthread.php?206-Her-voice-is-REAL!!!-Jackie-Proves-it!-%28Video%29&p=1052#post1052 this] reference to the [[Jackie Evancho]] article. This reference is being applied to the America's Got Talent section and the sentence, "One judge, Howie Mandel, had her sing a random voice exercise on the next evening's live show as proof that it was her voice that was heard.". I have tried to direct the user to the [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] guideline to show that forum posts are not counted as reliable sources because of their lack of verifiability and reliability. But the user have asked me to prove that the guideline directly states that that reference cannot be used. Instead, I am taking this here to have more experienced users weigh in. You can see my discussion with the user [[Talk:Jackie Evancho#Use of a forum reference|here]]. [[User:Silver seren|Silver]][[User talk:Silver seren|seren]][[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]] 02:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
::Yes, forums are not reliable sources, neither is youtube. If the editor is trying to make the point that the voice is real I suggest this good article from the LA Times [http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/31/entertainment/la-et-jackie-evancho-20100831]. If this is to show that the described incident happened on the show no source may be required unless the action is in dispute. --[[User:Torchwoodwho|Torchwood Who?]] ([[User talk:Torchwoodwho|talk]]) 03:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Heh, I already put that source in myself a couple of days ago. Well, I hope your response helps explain things to him. I suppose i'll go take the forum reference out of the article then. [[User:Silver seren|Silver]][[User talk:Silver seren|seren]][[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]] 03:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
::::Lol, no problem. In reference to sourcing events in TV shows tvguide.com has episode summaries for future use, but they are sparse [http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/Americas-Got-2010/]. There may be other sites with more detail. Just FYI.--[[User:Torchwoodwho|Torchwood Who?]] ([[User talk:Torchwoodwho|talk]]) 03:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

* Apparently, 1archie99 is not satisfied with just "one person" responding to this discussion I opened, per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jackie_Evancho&action=historysubmit&diff=385109093&oldid=385106420 this] edit he made, re-adding in the forum reference. Can some other editors please explain to him how a forum thread is not a reliable source? [[User:Silver seren|Silver]][[User talk:Silver seren|seren]][[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]] 05:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
*The document given at jackievanchos.org is not an RS as the forum post is SELF. Correct video citation would require locating an authorative copy where the judge makes that statement. [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] ([[User talk:Fifelfoo|talk]]) 05:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
:Thank you. I am currently at 3RR, so either someone else will have to remove the forum link or i'll have to do it a day from now. (It would be a huge sign of good faith and responsibleness if 1archie99 did it himself...) [[User:Silver seren|Silver]][[User talk:Silver seren|seren]][[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]] 06:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
*What looks like a regular anonymous user at a forum where anyone can post is not reliable. The video doesn't prove anything other than that the judge said that she didn't lipsync, and it's probably a copyright violation. The program itself (with episode number or broadcast date) could perhaps be cited if an official video isn't online. [[User:Jiiimbooh|Jiiimbooh]] ([[User talk:Jiiimbooh|talk]]) 06:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks for clarifying that. Where I said no other source required I was implying the material can self source if it's something like a plot summary or televised event.--[[User:Torchwoodwho|Torchwood Who?]] ([[User talk:Torchwoodwho|talk]]) 07:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
:::I did not originally put the disputed citation into the article; just thought it was worthwhile to leave it in because it actually showed via video the actual portion of the broadcast that my edit described. Because the purists only took to the discussion, not even the editor that originally put the cite in the article spoke up; only a description, not the actual event remains as a citation. Readers will have to take it on faith that the remaining cite is a true depiction. I wanted to leave all doubt behind what actully occurred. Because only the fanactics spoke that is not happening. I will now consider the matter closed.[[User:1archie99|1archie99]] ([[User talk:1archie99|talk]]) 16:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
* It was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jackie_Evancho&action=historysubmit&diff=385238745&oldid=385234322 added] back in again by another user whose username clearly broadcasts a COI issue. I'm still at 3RR, so can someone else please help with this? [[User:Silver seren|Silver]][[User talk:Silver seren|seren]][[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]] 21:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

== question about interpretations made by sources ==

(also posted [[Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#question_about_interpretations_made_by_sources|here]], i'm not sure where is the best place for it) there are two cases i'm dealing with that are quite similar & interesting. the first one is concerning the Arab Peace Process. israel has never "officially" responded to it (official, written response), however - the prime minister has made few comments about it during a speech. the vast majority of sources do not title it as an "official response", however, one (acceptable) source does. so according to wikipedia policies - it should be written in the article that israel HAS officially responded to it, even though some sources would claim that israel has never responded. israel's official response or lack thereof is an important fact, and i think it might be represented in wikipedia the wrong way, just because a single source chose to title the prime minister comments as an "official response".

the same goes for Mahmud Ahmadenijad calling the holocaust a "myth". the dictionary definition of myth is
a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event,
with or without a determinable basis of fact.
so calling the holocaust a myth should probably not be considered as [[holocaust denial]]. myth is different from fiction - and most sources do not draw that conclusion - but some (acceptable sources) do! and in accordance with wikipedia policies, that is what would end up in the article - that it IS a denial, and he IS a holocaust denier according to that statement. Here, again - it just feels wrong. '''there is nothing to reflect that the vast majority of sources do NOT title that statement as holocaust denial'''. Is that really the right interpetation of wikipedia policies? Maybe there is a policy which addresses this absurd situation. If not, maybe there should be. [[User:Eyalmc|Eyalmc]] ([[User talk:Eyalmc|talk]]) 10:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
:As to your first question, you will have to provide provide a diff to the challenged material. As to your second, you're fixating upon only one definition of the word "[[wiktionary:myth|myth]]". There are many sources indicating that Ahmadinejad's various comments about the Holocaust constitute [[holocaust denial]].[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4527142.stm][http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/world/middleeast/19iran.html?_r=1&hp][http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2149241,00.html]--[[User:Cuchullain|Cúchullain]] [[User talk:Cuchullain|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cuchullain|c]] 12:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
:: what does it mean to provide a "diff" ? also - your sources confirm my point exactly. the word "denial" or "deny" appear only on the first one, and it is based on the usage of the word myth. but that's exactly my point. some will interpret it as a denial, while possible many more wouldn't title it that way (probably because they do not see it as a denial. after all, holocaust denial does make a good headline, but they chose not to draw that conclusion). how should it be represented in wikipedia? [[User:Eyalmc|Eyalmc]] ([[User talk:Eyalmc|talk]]) 13:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Here is a link to a previous thread about this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#question_about_interpretations_made_by_sources] for reference.--[[User:Torchwoodwho|Torchwood Who?]] ([[User talk:Torchwoodwho|talk]]) 13:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Thank you Torchwood. But still, Eyalmc is going to have to tell us what article he's talking about and what source he's concerned with. Eyalmc, please see [[WP:DIFF]] on what a diff is and how to link to them. 
:::2)Again, on the holocaust issue, Eyalmc, you're being too pedantic about wording. The sources very clearly depict Ahmadinejad as asserting that the Holocaust did not occur in the way that is historically accepted. That is what holocaust denial means.--[[User:Cuchullain|Cúchullain]] [[User talk:Cuchullain|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cuchullain|c]] 13:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
::::Ahmadinejad certainly did not use the word "myth", as he was speaking in Farsi, not in English. There is a disagreement over the correct English translation of the term he used; having no knowledge of Farsi, I am not competent to judge who is correct. It seems to me that we should reflect this uncertainty, and neither assert nor deny that in this speech he denied the reality of the holocaust. [[User:RolandR|RolandR]] ([[User talk:RolandR|talk]]) 14:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::No, we should reflect what the reliable sources say, and these are all clear that he has, on several occasions, claimed that the holocaust did not occur in the way accepted by historians. We do not need to use the phrase "holocaust denial" to get that across. --[[User:Cuchullain|Cúchullain]] [[User talk:Cuchullain|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cuchullain|c]] 14:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::: Instead of just making assertions, please provide the sources you are discussing. Do they really say what you claim? Is the viewpoint you have articulated really the only significant viewpoint published by reliable sources? There is no way to judge those questions without actually looking at the sources. [[User:Dlabtot|Dlabtot]] ([[User talk:Dlabtot|talk]]) 17:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::: what's this game you're playing? In his previous post, [[User:Cuchullain|Cúchullain]] provided 3 such sources, the very first one, from the BBC no less, has as its ''headline '' '''"Iranian leader denies Holocaust"''': [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4527142.stm] [[User:HupHollandHup|HupHollandHup]] ([[User talk:HupHollandHup|talk]]) 18:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::: <s>Your</s>The assertion was "''he has, on several occasions, claimed that the holocaust did not occur in the way accepted by historians''". The source you provided does not support that assertion. Anyway, I'm pretty sure that no one is denying that multiple reliable sources have reported that he called the Holocaust a myth. Is it a unanimous judgement of all reliable sources or do sources differ in their interpretation of his comments? [[User:Dlabtot|Dlabtot]] ([[User talk:Dlabtot|talk]]) 18:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::no, that was not my assertion, it was a claim by [[User:Cuchullain|Cúchullain]]. The topic of this thread is whether or not Ahmadinejad can be called a holocaust denier. 3 ultra-reliable sources who make that claim were provided. Kindly stop playing games. [[User:HupHollandHup|HupHollandHup]] ([[User talk:HupHollandHup|talk]]) 18:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::: Please refrain from accusing me of 'playing games' or other personal attacks. "''The topic of this thread is whether or not Ahmadinejad can be called a holocaust denier.''" In that case, you are in the wrong place. This noticeboard is for discussing the reliability of particular sources for particular citations, in context. Determining The Truth™ is beyond its scope. [[User:Dlabtot|Dlabtot]] ([[User talk:Dlabtot|talk]]) 18:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::when someone provides 3 top-quality sources to support a claim, as [[User:Cuchullain|Cúchullain]] has done, and your response is "Instead of just making assertions, please provide the sources " - you are playing games , and pointing that out is not a personal attack. You may be correct that this is not the right notice board - but that comment should be directed at [[User:Eyalmc|Eyalmc]], who started this thread , not me. I'm ok with closing the discussion and marking it 'resolved'. [[User:HupHollandHup|HupHollandHup]] ([[User talk:HupHollandHup|talk]]) 18:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::: Any comment on this noticeboard that has as its subject matter another editor is disrupitive and off-topic. The question posed was proper for this venue, although lacking in the necessary details for a resolution. Still missing from this discussion are the answers to the four questions I pose below. [[User:Dlabtot|Dlabtot]] ([[User talk:Dlabtot|talk]]) 19:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::::This discussion has gotten muddled. Eyalmc's initial claim was that Ahmadinejad shouldn't be called a [[holocaust denier]], because he called it a "myth", and the definition of myth he chose to use was "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact." Of course that's totally silly and pedantic, and he wouldn't have used an English word in the first place. What is certain is that any number of reliable sources, including the ones I've cited above (these: [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4527142.stm][http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/world/middleeast/19iran.html?_r=1&hp][http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2149241,00.html]), indicate that Ahmadinejad has, on several occasions, voiced the opinion that the Holocaust did not occur in the manner that is accepted by historians. Usually he claims that it was fabrication trumped up to justify the creation of Israel. In his poorly calculated 2006 letter to the German chancellor, he further suggested that it may have been trumped up by Britain to embarrass Germany. It is safe to say this is not what historians of the holocaust believe, and some sources go so far as to call Ahmadinejad a "holocaust denier" outright.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4527142.stm] Eyalmc hasn't responded usefully to this, so the discussion should be closed.--[[User:Cuchullain|Cúchullain]] [[User talk:Cuchullain|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cuchullain|c]] 12:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: ''What is the exact url of the source in question? In which article is the source being used? What is the exact statement in the article that the source is supporting? Where is the relevant talk page discussion, if any?'' [[User:Dlabtot|Dlabtot]] ([[User talk:Dlabtot|talk]]) 18:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::That's what's not clear. Eyalmc hasn't provided that information, and it doesn't look like they're going to. As such the discussion is effectively over.--[[User:Cuchullain|Cúchullain]] [[User talk:Cuchullain|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cuchullain|c]] 18:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::: Thank you for contributing that bit of wisdom. [[User:Dlabtot|Dlabtot]] ([[User talk:Dlabtot|talk]]) 23:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
: If reliable sources differ in their interpretations, we report [[WP:UNDUE|all significant viewpoints]]. You can see an explanation of diffs at [[WP:DIFF]]. The operative questions here are: ''What is the exact url of the source in question? In which article is the source being used? What is the exact statement in the article that the source is supporting? Where is the relevant talk page discussion, if any?'' [[User:Dlabtot|Dlabtot]] ([[User talk:Dlabtot|talk]]) 18:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
::I just did a quick search. Hopefully this adds helpful information. There seem to be several sources associating [[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]] with [[Holocaust denial]]. This [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&hs=TSe&rls=en&q=Mahmoud%20Ahmadinejad%20holocaust%20denial%20-wikipedia&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=bks:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=wp link] shows books with his name and the phrase. Note that [http://books.google.com/books?id=QMts5Z36kjAC&pg=PA124&dq=Mahmoud+Ahmadinejad+holocaust+denial+-wikipedia&hl=en&ei=NmCSTMzQEIXSsAPnuZjACg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Mahmoud%20Ahmadinejad%20holocaust%20denial%20-wikipedia&f=false this one] says "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is its most virulent and vocal champion". So there seems to be a lot of [[WP:RS]] that put him in that category. [[User:AliveFreeHappy|AliveFreeHappy]] ([[User talk:AliveFreeHappy|talk]]) 18:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
::::Why did you post this as if it was a response to my comment? You seem to have completely ignored what I said, and don't appear to actually be engaging in a discussion. [[User:Dlabtot|Dlabtot]] ([[User talk:Dlabtot|talk]]) 17:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Somehow I doubt that a book called "Icon of Evil" and co-written by [[Alan Dershowitz]] would be acceptable as a reliable source for such information. [[User:RolandR|RolandR]] ([[User talk:RolandR|talk]]) 18:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
::::really? Why is that? is there some wiki policy regrading titles of works that would disqualify them from being reliable sources? Or a specific policy that relates to Dershowitz and excludes him from being a reliable source? [[User:HupHollandHup|HupHollandHup]] ([[User talk:HupHollandHup|talk]]) 14:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
:: google "Ahmadinejad holocaust myth" - 157,000 results. and "Ahmadinejad holocaust myth -denial -deny -denies" - 63,000 results. so about 40% of the sources do not even contain those words (from the sources that does, many are using the words in other context). So it's not a battle between two different interpretations - it's a battle between an interpretation, and lack thereof. I don't think there is a proper way to represent that duality in wikipedia. [[User:Eyalmc|Eyalmc]] ([[User talk:Eyalmc|talk]]) 06:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Yet again, you're being pedantic over the wording and trying to read your own interpretation into it. ''Every'' source I checked in a Google News search for [http://www.google.com/search?q=ahmadinejad&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=iAv&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=ahmadinejad%2Bholocaust&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=wn&fp=6f32b8af52b7e0b8 ahmadinejad+holocaust] discuss Ahmadinejad rejecting that the Holocaust occurred in the historically accepted way. And he's done it on several occasions. Additionally, you've never told us what article on the mideast peace process it is you're talking about, and what the source you're concerned about it. I move we close this discussion.--[[User:Cuchullain|Cúchullain]] [[User talk:Cuchullain|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cuchullain|c]] 12:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
:::: Agree. Rejecting that the Holocaust occurred in the historically accepted way i sthe definition of Holocaust denial. [[User:HupHollandHup|HupHollandHup]] ([[User talk:HupHollandHup|talk]]) 14:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Eyalmc, you shouldn't look for reliable sources for such things in regular Google, but first try Google News and Google Books. While both have a significant number of unreliable sources as well, the percentage of reliable ones is much higher than in Google search. But even if you use Google, and you use your second search string, the first result is [http://www.news.com.au/world/holocaust-a-myth-israel-no-future-ahmadinejad/story-e6frfkyi-1225776906966 News.com.au], a reliable source, which clearly states "President Ahmadinejad raised the stakes against Israel and called the Holocaust a lie[...]" Sourcse like this one, without containing the word "denial" or a variation thereof, make it very, very clear which interpretation of "myth" is used by Ahmadinejad, and that the rest of his statements also indicate that he is a Holocaust denier ("a show", "a lie", "an unreliable claim", "this claim is corrupt", ...). If ''you'' want to argue that there is a duality in the interpretation of his statements, then ''you'' have to present reliable sources which claim that he isn't a holocaust denier. It isn't sufficient to show (or to proclaim) that there are sources which don't explicitly label him one, you need sources specifically stating that he isn't one if you want to present that point of view in Wikipedia as well. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 12:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

== Conference papers ==

I'm working on the article ''[[Lady of Quality]]'' (a book written in 1972 by [[Georgette Heyer]]; it's set in the early 19th century). In 2009, there was an academic conference on Heyer's work [http://www.lucy-cav.cam.ac.uk/pages/news-events/re-reading-georgette-heyer.php]. One of the presentations, by the organizer of the conference, contains information that may be useful for this article, but I don't know whether it is considered a reliable source. The author sent me her slides, with a note that she has not written this up or submitted to any journals, so it has not been peer-reviewed or officially published. The author is a university professor who teaches English literature. She has been previously published, but her focus has previously been Shakespeare and Renaissance literature (several centuries before Heyer). [http://www.anglia.ac.uk/ruskin/en/home/faculties/alss/deps/english_media/staff/professor_sarah_brown.html] I've got this article at FAC and want to make sure that the source is considered sound before I incorporate any of the information. Thanks for any opinions. [[User:Karanacs|Karanacs]] ([[User talk:Karanacs|talk]]) 14:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
:I think so. The conference organizers would have to pass her, and also a presenter certainly puts her reputation on the line by getting up in front of peers. Write a very detailed reference note, though!--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 14:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
::(ec) She was the conference organizer (or at least the main contact), which made me a little more unsure. Thanks for the comment. [[User:Karanacs|Karanacs]] ([[User talk:Karanacs|talk]]) 14:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
:I'd agree it should be used, especially in the absence of other sources. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 14:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
::I wouldn't feel comfortable answering this question without knowing what sort of information is involved. [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 17:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
:::The information likely would be considered reliable if it had been published, but since it hasn't been, how would any reasonable editor "check your work" that is supported by this information? This seems to defeat the entire reason for our policies requiring information to be backed up by reliable sources, and instead we'd be asking readers to rely on you. Nothing personal of course, I mean you in the royal sense. — [[User:E. Ripley|e. ripley]]\[[User talk:E. Ripley|talk]] 17:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
:If you are sourcing to slides that are sent to you, and not published then they can not be used as a reliable source. Because they are not publicaly availiable. We do not allow sourcing to private correspondence. If they are puplished, but not peer reviewed, then they should be treated as a self puplished source. [[User:Taemyr|Taemyr]] ([[User talk:Taemyr|talk]]) 17:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Standards for conference presentations vary tremendously across fields. In my discipline we accept all contributions that are minimally on-topic, with no peer review. Note also there are people who organize sessions so they have a platform to present their pet views. I'm not saying that's going on here, but we have to be careful. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 17:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This is literary criticism, and the particular focus is a subject I have not seen covered in other sources (although, to be fair, there has been minimal work in serious criticism for this author/genre). To my knowledge, this was the first-ever conference devoted to this author's work; I don't know what the standards for inclusion were, nor am I very familiar with the overall standards for this type of conference.. The presentation was presented in public, but the author has yet to write it up as a formal paper. I am unsure whether the presentation itself counts as publication; if not, then I agree that this is an SPS and I don't think the author is an expert in this field. [[User:Karanacs|Karanacs]] ([[User talk:Karanacs|talk]]) 18:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

:Which does make a lot of difference. As Short Brigade Harvester Boris has indicated, a lot of conferences more or less let anyone present anything at all relevant to the conference, and they may all get published eventually, so even if published I'd argue that only a presentation by someone who was a known expert in the field could possible be called a reliable source. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 18:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be published, therefore it is not [[WP:V|verifiable]], therefore it can't qualify as a reliable source. If it were published in some form we would use the standard criteria involving the publisher's reputation and so on, per [[WP:RS]]. [[User:Dlabtot|Dlabtot]] ([[User talk:Dlabtot|talk]]) 19:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

:Agree, if it's not actually published, there's no way for anyone to check it. If the presenter does end up self-publishing it in some form, it would probably fall into the realm of [[WP:SPS|self-published sources]] we can potentially use (and if it gets published in a journal, so much the better).--[[User:Cuchullain|Cúchullain]] [[User talk:Cuchullain|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cuchullain|c]] 12:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
:Slides by themselves don't matter. What matters here is that the results of research have been a) Not peer reviewed b) Not published. Unpublished => Not RS. Wait until they publish the results of their research. [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] ([[User talk:Fifelfoo|talk]]) 12:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
::If the organizer of the the only conference on the author, and an Eng. Lit. prof, is not an expert, per Karanacs, they are going to have difficulty finding "peers" to review her work! [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 16:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

== Compassionate Spirit website ==

[http://www.compassionatespirit.com/Tabor-Jesus-Dynasty.htm This page] is currently used as a reference in the article [[The Jesus Dynasty]]. The author, Keith Akers, is a man of some repute in the field. I am just curious if the consensus is that it does qualify as a Reliable sources as per [[WP:RS]] or not, and also, separately, whether it is an acceptable source to establish notability. These questions are not, by the way, being asked in reference to this existing article, but in general. If it is sufficient both as a RS and as a NOTABILITY source, I am considering using it elsewhere as well. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 21:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
: It appears to be Aker's own website. So the question is if his opinion of the book is notable (the edit in question: "Keith Akers hailed the book as "a breath of fresh air in historical Jesus literature" and commended Tabor's use of extra-Biblical sources.") As tot he specific question of notability, other potential concerns are whether there's an association between Aker's and Tabor, whether they have the same publisher, whether they swim in the same fringe circles (or not) and so on. Taking a look now.[[User:Bali ultimate|Bali ultimate]] ([[User talk:Bali ultimate|talk]]) 22:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
:: Ok. Aker's isn't a scholar or a bigwig in biblical studies that I can tell (his own bio here [http://www.compassionatespirit.com/about_keith_akers.htm]). So what we have is a self-published book review. I don't think this would satisfy the "multiple, non-trival reviews" bit of the book notability guideline, so if this kind of review is all you have to establish notability for a book, i wouldn't think it would be enough (for what my opinion is worth). As for the reliable source question -- I could certainly see arguments against using him if people were objecting (if, say, he was praising his book from his personal website while magazines and scholarly journals were trashing it), but if no one is objecting...[[User:Bali ultimate|Bali ultimate]] ([[User talk:Bali ultimate|talk]]) 22:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Understood. Like I said, I wasn't so much concerned about it in regards to this particular article, but in general. And there is no real doubt the book is notable, so I might just try to find some other reviews. Thanks for the responses. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 22:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
:::: Tabor has a page on his blog to reviews and press mentions here [http://www.jesusdynasty.com/blog/media-coverage/]. A lot of that looks a lot better than the Aker's cite (the first article appears to be a US News exploration of the questions raised in the book, though i could be wrong; just scanned through the article for half a tick).[[User:Bali ultimate|Bali ultimate]] ([[User talk:Bali ultimate|talk]]) 22:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::Thanks for the pointer to the additional Tabor reviews. In defence of Akers I should say that he has published a book on Jesus, and ''that'' book has been independently and multiply reviewed. Perhaps he's not a scholar (I'm not sure) but do all reviewers have to be scholars to be cited on WP? --[[User:Michael C Price|Michael C. Price]] [[User talk:Michael C Price|talk]] 20:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::: No, doesn't have to be a "scholar" (lots of excellent and well-received popular histories are written by authors who don't have particular academic training, for instance) but we need some evidence that there's something that makes the self-published opinion notable. Judging by his self-description, he's an enthusaistic amateur with an idiosyncratic point of view. If his review had been published in a reliable source (particularly the quality press or specialty academic publications) that would make it easier to consider it reliable (since professional editors had determined that his opinions were worth broadcasting). But the bar gets higher if it's self-published (as it is in this case). As for Akers, it seems his 2000 book ''The Lost Religion of Jesus: Simple Living and Nonviolence in Early Christianity'' is the most relevant one. Hits in google scholar? 4 (two of those to Akers citing himself). ("Akers, Keith" yields 31, most of those seem to be about vegetarianism or Akers own work). While that's not positive evidence that he's not particularly notable in biblical studies, it's a good sign of that (Tabor gets 200 or so hits, a number of those appear to be citations in other academic works).[[User:Bali ultimate|Bali ultimate]] ([[User talk:Bali ultimate|talk]]) 20:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::As I said above, the original question was not asked specifically about the article on [[The Jesus Dynasty]], but rather on the reliability of the source as an RS in general. That is currently the only page that cites it as a source. Whether the review deserves to be on that page, and the amount of weight it might be due, were as I thought I indicated not the real discussion. Basically, the author is a self-described "Ebionite", and he has written a significant amount on his website about an "Ebionite Community" to which he is not affiliated. If it makes it any clearer, the question was really about whether that website would be sufficient to serve as a second reliable source for a separate article on that group. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 19:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
: His self-published writings aren't good for anything but his own opinion. Since he doesn't seem to be any kind of a player academically or in any other area (certainly not an acknowledged biblical or historical scholar) I would say you probably shouldn't use him. He's just some dude with an opinion. If others start taking note of some of his opinions, and publish them, then those bits of his opinion become more useable.[[User:Bali ultimate|Bali ultimate]] ([[User talk:Bali ultimate|talk]]) 19:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

== [[Qeparo]] ==

''Kleparo''^1 {{Verify source|date=September 2010}}.
:An editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qeparo&diff=next&oldid=384536674] put the verify tag, in this article [[Qeparo]]. I'm not sure why he put it there: he either suspects I falsified the source, or doubts that [[Halil Inalcik]] (ed.) is a reliable source, I don't know. The Sûret is A ''Copy of the Fiscal Survey of the sanjak of Albania in 1431 A.D.'' The entry on Qeparo/Kleparo reads: The village of Klaparos, [[nahiye]] of Sopot: houses 10, revenues 615 ase/akçe. [[User:Beserks|Beserks]] ([[User talk:Beserks|talk]]) 10:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

--References--

1. ''Nâhiyet-i Sopot: Karye-i Klaparos (10 hane [houses], hâsıl 615 [revenues, in akçe])''... in, İnalcık, Halil: ''Hicrî 835 Tarihli: Sûret-i Defter-i Sancak-i Arvanid''. Ankara. 1954, p. 27 - 28.
{{Reflist}}

== Reliability on genealogy websites ==

There has been some dispute over the reliability of either an accurate website of easy verifiability such as http://www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha/ and the biggest genealogy website in Portugal and perhaps in Europe, http://www.geneall.net/. Geneall.net, with more than a million entries, was part of a vaster project that was dropped by other countries, which prompted it to take the space others didn't want to fill. You can read about it on article here http://www.geneall.net/P/article.php?id=137 - a Portuguese translator is required. Such dispute is almost highly insulting to people in this environment who rely on them and are both qualified and this and other areas. This is something that should be cleared. [[User:LoveActresses|LoveActresses]] ([[User talk:LoveActresses|talk]]) 16:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The first is a [[WP:SPS]] by someone called Paul Theroff, I'll let our genealogy people tell us if he's an established expert in this area. --[[User:Cameron Scott|Cameron Scott]] ([[User talk:Cameron Scott|talk]]) 16:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The second makes use of user generated content (I think from the submissions bit) but I'm not clear on the editorial policies. Since we currently use it on over 600 pages might be nice to sort that one out... I've removed both of these from BLPs (which is why this has ended up here) but will bow to the greater expertise on the matter. --[[User:Cameron Scott|Cameron Scott]] ([[User talk:Cameron Scott|talk]]) 16:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

: The site has user generated content but nothing is added automatically nor without the consent and verifying of the author. Perhaps you should contact him through the webpage and he'll confirm it. [[User:LoveActresses|LoveActresses]] ([[User talk:LoveActresses|talk]]) 17:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

:So I looked up a random person on geneall.net: [[George Darwin]]. The site claims that he married Martha du Puy, but also states that she married his brother [[Francis Darwin|Francis]]: she did not. The site lists one child for George: he had four. This isn't what a reliable source looks like. [[User:Kenilworth Terrace|Kenilworth Terrace]] ([[User talk:Kenilworth Terrace|talk]]) 17:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

:: I know it seems that just because you searched a random name and it had one or another flaw it seems like the whole website is equally flawed, but I can assure you as an everyday reader of that website that it's just a fluke. Errors like those I can find only very rarelly, if you can take a credit for my word. Check other lines if you have the time, please. [[User:LoveActresses|LoveActresses]] ([[User talk:LoveActresses|talk]]) 17:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

:: Incomplete doesn't mean wrong, sometimes it only includes one line and not the collaterals, but the line itself is as accurate as possible. The site has some flaws, of course, but that doesn't make it absolutely unreliable because of it. Read the article I mention above: there the author of the site criticizes people who are destructive towards the effort of such a huge project. Wikipedia has flaws too. [[User:LoveActresses|LoveActresses]] ([[User talk:LoveActresses|talk]]) 17:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
:::That's one of the reasons why Wikipedia also isn't considered a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. — [[User:E. Ripley|e. ripley]]\[[User talk:E. Ripley|talk]] 18:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
:: PS: [[User:Caponer]] is an expert. I invited him to this discussion but he doesn't show up since September 1. [[User:LoveActresses|LoveActresses]] ([[User talk:LoveActresses|talk]]) 17:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

*A website like this definitely wouldn't be a reliable source for anything but the opinions of its author. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 18:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
** So we have A. A self-published website by a person of no established expertise or reliability? And, 2. A website that is added to by just about anyone? Both A and B are unreliable. The geneaology stuff is just a mess.[[User:Bali ultimate|Bali ultimate]] ([[User talk:Bali ultimate|talk]]) 18:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
***Well perhaps this shouldn't surprise us; genealogy is pretty much non-science or pseudoscience, as between 1 and 20% of each generation's biological father isn't who they think it is. (See [[Non-paternity event]]). It doesn't take many generations with this sort of error before the whole thing becomes an article of faith, a social construct more than a scientific one. Until this fundamental problem with genealogy is addressed we will continue to have problems in this area. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 18:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
****Such low numbers, valid only for the present in which they were obtained but not for any epoch, make your statement irrelevant, they are clearly not enough to change whole ancestries, specially when the people who they cheat with are often people of a close environment and status, often with common ancestries, and sometimes even more or less closely related to their spouses. Specially when people have so many female lines with ancestries that often appear more than once. Plus, there is no matematical formula or average number for how many people cheat their spouses. And there are many cases when the actual father is discovered as being a famous lover. There were also ways of not getting pregnant from a lover since ages ago. And if tests can confirm the male line of old lineages, then female lines are even less susceptible of being false. In fact, if in the 12th century we have like more than a million ancestors are in our country the population back then was less than that, then the difference is not so huge. Also, if we see the physical and other similarities between parents and children we can realize that such claims are highly exagerated. [[User:LoveActresses|LoveActresses]] ([[User talk:LoveActresses|talk]]) 16:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
****You are making a very "republican" point. This is however irrelevant. [[Genealogy]] is not about [[gene]]s, but about ''[[family]]''. As to the question about science, genealogy is not studied at universities. Reliable sources in genealogy are generally produced by amateurs. This however does not in any way diminish their reliability. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 19:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
*****Genealogy is about ancestry, as it is perceived, that is, who are actually genetic ancestors. No one sees it in any other way. [[User:LoveActresses|LoveActresses]] ([[User talk:LoveActresses|talk]]) 16:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
******Reliable sources are RARELY produced by amateurs. If reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking accuracy dont exist, we cannot cover the subject. [[Special:Contributions/Active_Banana|''Active'']] [[User:Active Banana|'''Banana''']] ''' (''' [[User talk:Active Banana|''bananaphone'']] 19:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
*******An amateur can find solid elements and simply put them available. That doesn't make them unreliable. [[User:LoveActresses|LoveActresses]] ([[User talk:LoveActresses|talk]]) 16:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
*****So long as we are clear that we are talking about a faith-based belief rather than a scientific one, I agree with your first point. There's a school of thought that standards of reliability need to be even higher for pseudoscientific topics than for scientific ones. Amateurs, self-published sites and user-generated sites aren't normally considered as reliable sources. Why would be consider them to be in this case? --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 19:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
******Just because some people have one or two children from another father it doesn't mean everyone is, and thus it doesn't make genealogy a pseudo-science. I don't know what the women you know do, but you seemed excessively biased. [[User:LoveActresses|LoveActresses]] ([[User talk:LoveActresses|talk]]) 16:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
******What's faith, that 98% of our ancestors are real or that 2% might not be? [[User:LoveActresses|LoveActresses]] ([[User talk:LoveActresses|talk]]) 16:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
******We may be speaking of very different things. I do not think genealogy exist in the US beyond [[Ellis Island]] records. On the other hand, in countries with church records, even ordinary people can trace their roots to the 16. century. Likewise, European nobility is well covered in printed sources. As to the amateur sources, I am ''not'' referring to web sites, but printed sources reliably published. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 19:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

* Paul Theroff seems to be highly appreciated on the on-line genealogy community. Quoting from the [http://www.faqs.org/faqs/genealogy/german-faq/part2/ Frequently Asked Questions] file of <code>soc.genealogy.german</code> from 2005
{{Cquote|Subject: 15. How can I learn about German noble families?

The standard series of books on German nobility is the Gotha
series, which has appeared under various titles since the late
18th century. Look in your library catalog for a title similar
to ''[[Gothaisches genealogisches Taschenbuch der adeligen Häuser]]''
or ''[[Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels]]''. The latter has an online
surname index at <http://www.rootsweb.com/~autwgw/sgi/index.htm>

Herbert Stoyan has an excellent online resource for noble
genealogy called WW-Person at
<http://www8.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/html/ww-person.html>

Paul Theroff has an online Gotha at
<http://pages.prodigy.net/ptheroff/gotha/gotha.htm>

Please be advised, however, that stories of noble relations in
American families are often exaggerated.
}}
:This however does not quite make him a reliable source. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 18:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

:: But how seriously do we take the views of online communities? --[[User:Cameron Scott|Cameron Scott]] ([[User talk:Cameron Scott|talk]]) 19:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Was that a rhetorical question? [[Special:Contributions/Active_Banana|''Active'']] [[User:Active Banana|'''Banana''']] ''' (''' [[User talk:Active Banana|''bananaphone'']] 19:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

::::OK, let's take another random example. [http://www.geneall.net/W/per_page.php?id=556874 Adrian Carton de Wiart] is said to have one child by his first marriage and then to have married a second time to Joan Sutherland. At [[Adrian Carton de Wiart]] we read that he had two children by his first wife and that his second wife was called Ruth Myrtle Muriel Joan McKechnie. Not quite as bad as George Darwin, but still problematic. [[User:Kenilworth Terrace|Kenilworth Terrace]] ([[User talk:Kenilworth Terrace|talk]]) 20:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

:::::The Wikipedia article also says the second wife, Joan McKechnie, was "known as Joan Sutherland" – with rather bad sourcing. The original source for all of this seems to be ''The Daily Telegraph'', 17 January, 2006, reprinted [http://peeragenews.blogspot.com/2006_02_01_archive.html here]. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 21:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Genealogies generally do ''not'' list all children. This does not make them unreliable. Indeed, infant mortality and the reuse of names in a family occurs often. Also sites such as LDS do not check data offered. Major societies do (Mayflower, DAR etc.) and are reliable. As are Debrett etc.
Lastly, women marrying the borther of their first husband are not rare at all, though I do not know if this is the Darwin case. See [[Henry VIII]]. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 12:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

:Oh dear. My point is that I looked at exactly two entries. The Darwin entries contain ''errors'': Maud du Puy married George Darwin and she did not marry Francis Darwin. That error occurs in three places on the site: [http://www.geneall.net/U/per_page.php?id=537850 here], [http://www.geneall.net/U/per_page.php?id=516563 here] and [http://www.geneall.net/U/per_page.php?id=537849 here]. The de Wiart entry contains a ''serious inadequacy'': Joan Sutherland's correct name was Ruth Myrtle Muriel Joan McKechnie and that should have been recorded. Both entries are ''incomplete'' in respect of the list of children. Collect's points are valid in general, but irrelevant in this case -- the facts of which show the site in question to be quite unreliable. [[User:Kenilworth Terrace|Kenilworth Terrace]] ([[User talk:Kenilworth Terrace|talk]]) 16:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia article on the ''[[Almanach de Gotha]]''. The last edition, printed in [[Gotha (town)|Gotha]], is from 1944. On-line versions of the book [http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=almanach+de+gotha%20AND%20mediatype%3Atexts are available] at the [[Internet Archive]], the latest version seems to be from 1922. These are definitely [[WP:RS]] but are of little help in [[WP:BLP]]. There is another publication from London with the same name from 1998–2004, but it has been criticized for unreliability. It may well be that Paul Theroff's on-line Gotha may in fact be the most reliable. I do not think this notice board can pass judgment on Paul Theroff. The issue should be discussed and decided in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility]] or maybe [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy]]. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 16:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

:As always, reliable for what purpose? Information in the ''Almanach de Gotha'' is probably reliable when it is dealing with people living at the time and their immediate ancestors and near relatives. The little historical sketches showing exactly how Prince Johannes Georg Ferdinand of Saxe-Saxe-Saxe is descended from Julius Caesar and how his family ruled X, Y and Z in the 12th century are not reliable in any sense since this kind of information is the province of historians. But in general, genealogical information which doesn't make it into plainly reliable sources probably isn't important and therefore one should not be looking for dubious sources with which to support it. An article without an ahnentafel or graphical family tree is usually all the better for that absence. [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 20:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

::None of the sites mentioned (http://www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha/ , http://www.geneall.net/ ) are considered reliable sources by genealogists. They are self-published, have no editorial policies, accept any drivel submitted by anyone, and as already stated, are not reliable sources for anything but the opinions of their authors/contributors. There seems to be some misunderstanding about the nature of genealogy and its sources. Genealogical sources are not created ''by genealogists''; they consist largely of public records, (e.g., vital records, court records, censuses, ships' records, etc.) created in the past by public or governmental entities, and then cited as sources for the assertions of genealogists. Although genealogy is a mature field with [http://www.ngsgenealogy.org/cs/genealogical_standards_committee well-established standards], none of these sites employ those standards in determining what is posted there. Further, a genealogist can be a reliable source for ''how to conduct genealogical research'' without being a reliable source on the family tree of any given family.

::To the sites already mentioned, I'd like to add another: http://www.wargs.com/ . It is used as a source in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wargs.com%2F&limit=500&offset=0 over 500 articles], many of which are biographies of living people. Each family tree there contains a disclaimer by the website owner: "The following material on the immediate ancestry of ''soandso'' should not be considered either exhaustive or authoritative, but rather as a first draft." Doesn't sound like it meets [[WP:RS]] to me. [[User:ProGene|ProGene]] ([[User talk:ProGene|talk]]) 20:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

:::In my country, they are recognized as reliable, despite its flaws. As for the gotha one, if you compare with the actual Almanach of Gotha you'll see it's accurate. [[User:LoveActresses|LoveActresses]] ([[User talk:LoveActresses|talk]]) 16:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

::: A first draft essencially means incomplete, not wrong. [[User:LoveActresses|LoveActresses]] ([[User talk:LoveActresses|talk]]) 16:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

::: It's still a Self-published source (as far as I can tell) and should not be used. --[[User:Cameron Scott|Cameron Scott]] ([[User talk:Cameron Scott|talk]]) 16:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
::::Whether first draft or not, anthing that has such a blatant "We do not stand behind the factual accuracy of the content you find here at this time" should not be used until they are willing to stand behind their claims. [[Special:Contributions/Active_Banana|''Active'']] [[User:Active Banana|'''Banana''']] ''' (''' [[User talk:Active Banana|''bananaphone'']] 23:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

::::: Such a blatant nothing. You're putting those words on the mouth of the author and trying to fit them in the claim that it is just a first draft. You can't infer that from "first draft". If I say something is still at the beginning you can't jump and accuse me of having inaccuracies as if you were inside my mind and work. [[User:LoveActresses|LoveActresses]] ([[User talk:LoveActresses|talk]]) 15:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:::::Does that mean it's OK to delete citations to http://www.wargs.com/ ? [[User:ProGene|ProGene]] ([[User talk:ProGene|talk]]) 23:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

== Huffington Post RS Questions ==

Problematic sourcing at huffington post
{{La|The Huffington Post}}
===Sexism===
The Huffington Post is often criticized by feminists and conservatives alike for objectifying women by pushing disproportionately negative coverage of females, such as actress nipple slips.[35][36][37] The Huffington Post has also been accused of sexism in general, outside of its entertainment page.[38][39][40][41][42][43]

Currently this looks like a minefield of sources that look questionable to say the least.
*[http://jezebel.com/5284828/does-the-huffington-post-use-sexism-to-drive-liberal-page-views This article at jezebel.com]
*[http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-the-case-of-huffington-post-sexism/ The Frisky]
*[http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/06/23/huffington-post-sexism-goes-green/ The Washington City paper]
*[http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/v/e/versharma/2009/06/peekaboo-sexism-at-the-huffing.php Talkingpointsmemo.com]
*[http://www.undomesticgoddess.com/2010/02/guest-post-sexism-censorship-and-highly.html A blog at blogspot]
*[http://open.salon.com/blog/cam_battley/2008/08/29/on_palinhuffington_post_wallowing_in_sexist_mud Open.Salon.com]
*[http://community.feministing.com/2008/10/sexism-watch-and-the-huffingto.html community.feministing.com]

The only one here looking remotely anything like a RS is Washingtoncitypaper.com which still can't have that high a ciruclation enough to be given Due weight escpieally since a [http://www.google.com/search?q=huffington+post+sexist&hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&sa=X&ei=liWVTLrMDYGB8gbMpoiSDA&ved=0CBEQpwU&source=lnt&tbs=nws%3A1%2Ccdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A9%2F2%2F2006%2Ccd_max%3A9%2F18%2F2010 google search is not encouraging] [[User:ResidentAnthropologist|The Resident Anthropologist]] ([[User talk:ResidentAnthropologist|talk]]) 20:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
:Even the best of those are nonnotable bloggers on a larger site. The first three had potential, but who are the people complaining even? Nobodies. Coverage would have to be more mainstream to be worth a mention in the HuffPo article. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] ([[User talk:DreamGuy|talk]]) 18:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
:: Here are a few better ones. [[The Weekly Standard]] [http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/11/huffpos_misogyny_the_nsfw_path.asp] [[National Organization for Women]] [http://www.now.org/issues/media/hall-of-shame/index.php/issues/sexism/?paged=2] Along with the one in the Washington City Paper, it's a clear trend, worth a mention in the HuffPo article. --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] ([[User talk:GRuban|talk]]) 23:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

===Antisemitism===
the [[Institute for Global Jewish Affairs]] is the only source for:

The Institute for Global Jewish Affairs has claimed that The Huffington Post promotes anti-semitism through its routine negative coverage of Israel, citing as examples its news stories, commentary, and the comments posters have made with regard to Jews.[29]

[http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=3&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=624&PID=0&IID=3211&TTL=Anti-Israelism_and_Anti-Semitism_in_Progressive_U.S._Blogs/News_Websites:_Influential_and_Poor Source]
[[User:ResidentAnthropologist|The Resident Anthropologist]] ([[User talk:ResidentAnthropologist|talk]]) 20:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
:Are you asking whether the Huffington Post is RS? We have discussed this before, look at the archives. I think the answer was yes. We can source articles to it without having to bring in any biases, whether sexist, antisemitic, liberal or otherwise. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 21:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
::I think the OP is questioning the sources used for content in the Wikipedia Huff Post article itself, which do appear problematic to me. [[Special:Contributions/Active_Banana|''Active'']] [[User:Active Banana|'''Banana''']] ''' (''' [[User talk:Active Banana|''bananaphone'']] 21:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
As always, opinions from any source are usable as opinions, and referred to as such. WP does not vouchsafe that any opinions are "facts." [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 12:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
: This "institute" appears to be an arm of the [[Jerusalem_Center_for_Public_Affairs|JCPA]], which is an Israeli quango led by an Israeli diplomat and staffed largely by former/current Israeli army officers and diplomats. That qualifies it in my view as a promotional source along the lines of [[WP:QS]], so anything they say should be carefully attributed, that is if used at all. WP:V says that promotional sources shouldn't be used if the material can be seen as unduly self-serving, and labeling critics of Israel as anti-semites by the JCPA does sound self-serving to me. --[[User:Dailycare|Dailycare]] ([[User talk:Dailycare|talk]]) 16:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
:Just saying that "opinions from any source are usable as opinions" is highly misleading, as there's the question of notability and fairness. If this is the only source making this claim the opinion is not notable, and it would be a violation of NPOV to include it in the article. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] ([[User talk:DreamGuy|talk]]) 18:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
:It is simply not true that "opinions from any source are usable as opinions"; this is a confusion of the guideline that self-published sources are usable for opinions about ''themselves'' (and which specifically excludes their opinions about third-parties). The site www.jcpa.org doesn't seem to meet any of our usual tests for a reliable source – peer-reviewed material, a defined editorial process, a reputation for accuracy. The 19 hits on Google Scholar don't show much evidence of being cited elsewhere. Unless someone can demonstrate that other reliable sources regard www.jcpa.org as reliable, then don't think it meets our requirements in RS. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 01:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

===Jesse Ventura and 9/11 conspiracy theory===
On March 9, 2010,The Huffington Post published and subsequently removed an article written by former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura with the following explanation: "Editor's Note: The Huffington Post's editorial policy, laid out in our blogger guidelines, prohibits the promotion and promulgation of conspiracy theories – including those about 9/11. As such, we have removed this post." Accusations of censorship soon followed.[30][31][32][33][34]

*[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse-ventura/for-some-the-search-for-w_b_491504.html The Removed Blog posting at Huff Post]
*[http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7904548 A forum]
*[http://www.prisonplanet.com/huffington-post-kills-jesse-venturas-piece-on-911.html Parent Planet]
*[http://www.infowars.com/huffington-post-sends-ventura-article-to-memory-hole Infowars.com]
[[User:ResidentAnthropologist|The Resident Anthropologist]] ([[User talk:ResidentAnthropologist|talk]]) 21:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
:Same as above. Notability. Including whining from some notoriously whiny blogs/boards when there is no real world coverage of it is making a mountain out of a molehill and violating NPOV in the process. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] ([[User talk:DreamGuy|talk]]) 18:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

== Newspaper question ==

If a newspaper publishes a story - in the paper itself, rather than on its website - does that make it any the less of a story? I ask because a reference to a story in a newspaper has been questioned as "possibly fake" as it did not appear on the paper's website. (Although thousands of readers would have held the story in their hands). The "fake" comment crops up here, on 12 September: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_A._Cooper_%28author%29&action=history]. A copy of the story has, however, been uploaded at Commons here: [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cooperbook.jpg] - although it has been nominated for deletion. I have used refs to newspapers, books etc not found online in many articles without problem - so I just wondered if this was a new Wikipedia policy?--[[User: Myosotis_Scorpioides|''' Myosotis Scorpioides''']] 21:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
:Offline sources are fine becuase some one theoreitcally could track down the Micro-film of the paper that day. However the Scan on the commons seems to be an add that was placed in the paper rather than a "News story." So yes offline sources are fine but if its a recent date (especially in the last 10 years) and other stories that are contemporary to it are there and its not it would be a big [[WP:REDFLAG]]. [[User:ResidentAnthropologist|The Resident Anthropologist]] ([[User talk:ResidentAnthropologist|talk]]) 21:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
:References should primarily be made to the printed versions of newspaper stories – with full page numbers etc., as they are persistent. Links to on-line versions should be provided, if they are available. However, in your case the article does not seem to be a newspaper story, but some kind of advertisement. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 21:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
:On top of that, most local community newspapers print all sorts of manner of junk that is not notable enough to be used as a source for demonstrating notability on Wikipedia. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] ([[User talk:DreamGuy|talk]]) 18:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

== Cited definitions - how should we treat them? ==

I accept that copying large chunks of text without crediting the author is plagiarism, but where is the line? E.g. it is often useful to be able to cite a dictionary-style definition as part of an article, so the reader has a clear understanding of a particular term. Is it acceptable to copy the definition of the term verbatim from a source such as a dictionary, glossary or encyclopaedia as long as it is referenced? Does it have to be in quotes? And what if it's just one or two words different (without altering the sense)? An example is [[coal drop]] which is taken from the source cited. Of course, normally this would then get expanded with other material, whilst keeping the cite intact. --[[User:Bermicourt|Bermicourt]] ([[User talk:Bermicourt|talk]]) 23:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
:IANAL, but; There is plagiarism and there is copyright violation. As long as we have correct references we are not comitting plagiarism. We might however be comitting a copyright violation. Also just altering a few words does not prevent violation of copyright. However facts are not copyrightable. [[User:Taemyr|Taemyr]] ([[User talk:Taemyr|talk]]) 00:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
::[[IANAL]]= "I am not a lawyer" - [[user:220.101.28.25|'''220.101''']] [[User talk:220.101.28.25|talk]][[Special:Contributions/220.101.28.25|\Contribs]] 07:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
:::I could be wrong, but I don't think it can be determined except by a judge in a court of law. If a source says "The house is red", we may be able to say "The house is red" (without the quotes), and it's not a copy vio or plagiarism because the statement is so simple that it doesn't need to be put in our own words. It's just simple information that cannot be copyrighted. If the statements become more complex, the possibility of running afoul in some way increases, and we need to summarize the information (which isn't copyrighted), without using the same wording or expression (which is copyrighted). This can be tricky per [[Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing]]. Anyways, it's always a judgement call unless an actual US judge makes a ruling, so we need to stay far from the line. - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) 07:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Anent definitions - in technical areas, the term as used in a popular dictionary may not be congruent with scientific usage. Where any doubt exists, the more specific the source to the topic, the better. In the US, by the way, courts have held that simple statements of fact can not be copyrighted. This was pretty much a result of telephone directories (pretty much lists of numbers, names and addresses) were found not to be copyrightable. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 12:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

:Normally, I'd recommend such a derivative sentence to be replaced by the source text inside quotes (making clear it's a quotation) and clearly referenced. There's no question that a properly-quoted short extract from an attributed source is acceptable for copyright purposes. By making the quote explicit, the editor does not commit plagiarism, since there's no inference that the editor is claiming the work as their own. Nevertheless, in this case, the entire article text consists of one sentence and a sentence fragment. By [[WP:DICTDEF]], it would be much more suitable for Wiktionary, unless it can be expanded substantially in the near future. I've created [[wikt:coal drop]] and attributed it to the present article. It's a new article, but if it is not expanded in a reasonable time, I'd suggest deletion – it's currently an orphan. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 02:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

== YouTube video as wikipedia article reference ==

Here [[WP:RD/M#YouTube video as wikipedia article reference]] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&oldid=385590561 DIFF] an editor has mentioned using several YouTube videos as references re [[Audi V8]] "to back up fact that this model haven't got an electronic speed limiter", and wondering why they were deleted. I mentioned [[wp:original research]], then realised that they were probably at the wrong venue. I suggested they come here. [[FYI]] and comment! Regards, - [[user:220.101.28.25|'''220.101''']] [[User talk:220.101.28.25|talk]][[Special:Contributions/220.101.28.25|\Contribs]] 07:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
:Creating and editing videos is only a little more difficult than writing text these days, so I can't see how a video from an anonymous uploader on YouTube is likely to meet our expectations for a [[WP:RS|reliable source]], as the site has no editorial process for ensuring the accuracy of what is presented. I'd suggest that the default assumption is that YouTube is not a reliable source, and the burden of proof in any individual case is on the editor wishing to use it as a source. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 02:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
::The main exception is when it is a release from an organization such as Virgin Atlantic or something that is using Youtube for advertising purposes... but then it has to be treated as a primary source and with care that it is actually what is being presented.---'''[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|NO! I'm Spartacus!]]'' 02:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

== Cato publications on Rand's centrality to Libertarianism ==

From [[Libertarianism]]
*Is Brian Doherty, [http://www.cato.org/research/articles/doherty-050405.html Ayn Rand at 100: "Yours Is the Glory"], [[Cato Institute]] Policy Report Vol. XXVII No. 2 (March/April 2005). reliable to substantiate "Ayn Rand has been described as "the most popular and influential libertarian figure of the twentieth century."" Given the grandiose claim, is it reliable to substantiate Ayn Rand as the most popular and influential libertarian figure of the twentieth century.
::Cato Policy Reports are not listed as Peer Reviewed by Ulrich's
*Is http://www.cato.org/special/threewomen/rand.html reliable to substantiate "Rand's "enormous contribution to the growth of libertarianism""
*Is http://www.cato.org/special/threewomen/rand.html reliable to substantiate "that, "[m]any, and perhaps most, future libertarians first encountered libertarian ideas through Rand's novels, whether they ultimately accepted her Objectivist philosophy or not.""
::Thanks for your time. Mentioned at [[Talk:Libertarianism#Ayn Rand]] [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] ([[User talk:Fifelfoo|talk]]) 12:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

::: It depends on (wording of) the statement.
::::#Is it a statement about what the Cato Institute says, or
::::# is it a statement about what Ayn Rand is?
::::[[User:North8000|North8000]] ([[User talk:North8000|talk]]) 14:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::[[Brian Doherty]] should be a good-enough commentator for Ayn Rand's significance in libertarianism; his opinions should be attributed. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 22:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::It is sad that some editors cannot tell the difference between an op-ed and reasoned commentary. We reject those sources in articles about social scientists for the same reason that we reject them for articles about natural sciences. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 01:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::The Cato Institute does not seem to peer-review its contributions, nor state its editorial policies. However, it does attract numerous hits on Google Scholar, with many of its articles being cited elsewhere – although that's not a guarantee of reputation, it's at least an indication. The overall status of Cato Institute as a reliable source is unclear, and I'd recommend against using the second and third links as the sole source for a piece of text. On the other hand, using the piece by [[Brian Doherty (journalist)]] as a source could rely on Doherty's notability as a published "expert" in the field, but it would have to be treated as an opinion and attributed. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 02:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

== Web based magazines as sources? ==

I would like to know if the following web based e-magazines and e-"journals" are reliable sources for literary constructs:

*Muse India [http://www.museindia.com]
*Sketchbook [http://poetrywriting.org/]
*Crisis Chronicles [http://library.crisischronicles.com]

Thanks. --[[User:Ragib|Ragib]] ([[User talk:Ragib|talk]]) 16:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

:To give more context to the above, I'm asking if these sources are reliable enough to show [[21 line fusion sonnet]] is a new kind of sonnet. (and given references are [http://www.museindia.com/regularcontent.asp?issid=33&id=2190], where one such sonnet is published, [http://poetrywriting.org/Sketchbook5-3MayJun2010/Sketchbook_5-3_MayJune_2010_Genre_Fusion_Sonnets_Sonnet_Mondal.htm], where the "creator" of such sonnets provide a definition). (For the latter, please don't assume "Dr." implies a PhD ... apparently the "creator" of these sonnets uses "Dr." upon receiving an honorary D.Litt from a obscure local non-academic literary society.). --[[User:Ragib|Ragib]] ([[User talk:Ragib|talk]]) 16:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
::I would be concearned about SPS here. Is there any evidacen that these onloijne magazines exercise any kind of editorial control?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 17:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
:::I doubt that any of them are anything other than SPS or blogs. [http://crisischronicles.com/ This] is definitely a personal blog published by [http://crisischronicles.com/About.html this person]. --[[User:Ragib|Ragib]] ([[User talk:Ragib|talk]]) 19:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
:We'd need much better sources to establish newness of any literary form. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] ([[User talk:DreamGuy|talk]]) 18:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
:@Slatersteven-You can kindly visit the sites.They are old e-journals and reputed ones with very well edited contents.Apart from this the article has references of othe sites and journals also.Unsignificant materials have not never been published by these journals.[[Muse India]] also has a wiki article. {{unsigned|Poet009}}
::I have and they look SPS vanity sites to me.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 19:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The other concern is this: I'm highly suspicious of any publication that prints content attributed to [http://poetrywriting.org/Sketchbook5-3MayJun2010/Sketchbook_5-3_MayJune_2010_Genre_Fusion_Sonnets_Sonnet_Mondal.htm "Dr. X"], when the person is clearly not the holder of an earned doctorate or a medical degree of any kind (only an honorary D. Litt, that too from a totally obscure non-academic organization). Reputable scholarly publications or one with at least some editorial control would never fail to catch a self-proclaimed "Dr.". --[[User:Ragib|Ragib]] ([[User talk:Ragib|talk]]) 19:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
:There are other references too and many wikipedia articles have used these sites of muse india and other voices project or google books site as references before.I don't think they are vanity sites.{{unsigned|Poet009}}

::That does not show these are reliable sources ... only means we need to remove them if used as sources in other Wikipedia articles, unless the sources are proved to be reliable. --[[User:Ragib|Ragib]] ([[User talk:Ragib|talk]]) 19:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

::Can we have some soures toi sho0these sites being cited by RS please?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 19:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

::Ragib, Now you need to edit many things .Why haven't you done it before?yes they are reliable.Each of the journal has editors and one cannot just publish anything they want.The contents have passed through an editors' eyes.If they are non reliable you need to give proper evidence as so many wikipedia users cannot be wrong while using them as references.
@Slatersteven let me browse the net to find Reliable sourse for these journals.
For Muse India visit the link of one of the most reputed newspapers of India.[http://www.hindu.com/lr/2009/12/06/stories/2009120650020100.htm]

:There is reference of google books in the article too and look this site can never be a SPS vanity [http://www.othervoicespoetry.org/vol45/mondal/index.html]
::I would say that the Hindu referance does go a long way to establish that Muse is RS.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 20:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

::It establishes that Muse is a web-journal/magazine, but I'm wondering if it is reliable as a scholarly publication. From the article, it seems that the author was using the word "journal" to mean "magazines", not a scholarly publication. --[[User:Ragib|Ragib]] ([[User talk:Ragib|talk]]) 20:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

::Dear Ragib, then I must say no newspaper is also scholarly.Remove everything that is non scholarly.Does wikipedia says that the reference HAS TO BE scholarly.No.It says it must be reliable and it is dear Ragib.

:::No that is a red herring. There is nothing to say that being 'just a magazine' invalidates anything as RS. However the Hindu article only says that Muse's themed issues are of a high standard. As such we really need a bit more.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 20:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

::Another reference.After all my comment is that each of the website is not a vanity website.No one can post anything without editing and descission of the editors there and they are descent references for a short article.[http://archive.deccanherald.com/Content/Apr132008/artic2008041262369.asp]
:::Actualy they can, its called my space and allows anyone to post poetry.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 20:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

::Dear Slatersteven "my space" is for posting but only few selections from my space are entered into the main journal content per issue under the section selections from my space and the rest of the thematic contents book reviews etc are directly sent to the editor for consideration.Many major poets have contributed in this journal including Sunil Gangopadhyaya, the present Sahitya akademi president.

:::None the less the magazine does in fact publish 'from the readers' material. it would therefore be neccersary to establish that any material that you are using as a source has undergone the editorial process (also the fact that major poest have been published there is as much of a red herring as it not being scholatic). I the case under discusionl you source only establishes tht this 21 line fusion sonnet has been writen by Mr Sonet, it does not establish anything else (including its newness). IN fact the source has published the poems wihtout any editorial comment so we cannot know if these are published becasue of their worth or becasue they were sent in. I also think there may be notabiltiy issues here rather the truely RS issues.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 20:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

:The other site links in the article also needs to be checked.In none of the sites anyone can post their material except the editor.Also the other external links.[http://thehoustonliteraryreview.com/bookshelf.aspx] also google books link and other voices in Poetry link.Other voices was one of the sites listed in UNESCOs World Poetry Portal.As a whole I think notabily is there though there for the article to be there are bits of conflicting issues which might be solved keeping in track with new issues of reputed journals.

:: I would be happier with more main stream sources revieing tnhis new form. What worries me is that none of them seem to.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 21:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

::I would try to find them but these links are enough to keep this article but may be this article needs to get stronger with some more references.References of two print journals have also been added.Editor Yumugesa has quite an experience with editing sonnet articles and haikus etc.I am witing for his comment too.

:::"Unlike the more common 14-line format, these sonnets comprise 21 lines, with new rhyming variations." is not supported by the text, the text is just the poetry itself. There is no anaylsis so you cannot claim the source says that this is a new form of Ryming or that they differ from any otehr type of ryme. Also the Crisi Chronical source was writen by the subject of the artciel so cannot be called third party so is not RS for this subject.As indead is the oterh source. So two thirds of the sources listed here are in fact by the subject (and the third appears to be as well). It dos not matter where a source is published (and there is some reason to say that Muse may be RS) it who writes it that is as important.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 21:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

== Blender Magazine as a source ==

Is blender magazine a valid source? They had some criticism of [[Emerson Lake and Palmer]] which I would like to include in which they named ELP as the second worse band of all time. ELP has been a much criticized band but there is no indication of that from ELP's page here.--[[User:UhOhFeeling|UhOhFeeling]] ([[User talk:UhOhFeeling|talk]]) 23:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
:Anyone? Buehler?--[[User:UhOhFeeling|UhOhFeeling]] ([[User talk:UhOhFeeling|talk]]) 14:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
::[[Is there anybody out there?]]--[[User:UhOhFeeling|UhOhFeeling]] ([[User talk:UhOhFeeling|talk]]) 00:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
:::From [http://www.blender.com/terms.html Terms & Conditions]:
:::*"Dennis does not endorse or control the Submitted Content delivered to this Site, and Dennis has no obligation to monitor such Submitted Content. As such, Dennis does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of any such Submitted Content."
:::If the criticism is "Submitted Content", then it's unequivocally not a reliable source. Given that the site itself is published in blog format and has no statement of editorial process for the rest of its content, I'd think it extremely unlikely that it meets [[WP:RS]] anyway. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 03:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

== Linkedin BLP ==

Is Linkedin good enough for sourcing an unreffed BLP? [[User:Us441|Us441]]([[User Talk:Us441|talk]])([[Special:Contributions/Us441|contribs]]) 00:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
:Generally, no. The problem is that LinkedIn does nothing to verify that the person making the account is actually the person in question. As such, we can't reliably state that the information is accurate. Even if it were allowed, it would fall under the restrictions for self-published sources about themselves, which can be found at [[WP:SELFPUB]]; the fifth point on that list says that "[they may be used as long as] the article is not based primarily on such sources." [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 00:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
::Agree, generally not reliable, especially if there are no other sources at all.--[[User:Cuchullain|Cúchullain]] [[User talk:Cuchullain|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cuchullain|c]] 13:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

== Le Monde Diplomatique ==

Can Le Monde Diplomatique, particularly its maps, such as this one [http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/cartes/albanie] be considered a reliable source? [[User:Athenean|Athenean]] ([[User talk:Athenean|talk]]) 01:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
: Le Monde Diplomatique is a very high quality news source in general. As to the map, the question of reliability is transfered (partially). In this case to the source: "La Question alabanaise, Fayard, 1995." Le Monde generally does well with what it broadcasts, but is not infallible (of particular interest, if there is doubt, is ''when'' Le Monde ran this map; sometimes things are thought accurate that are changed/corrected later by further research. The book, after all, is 15 years old). All that said, if the book is not available for review, and there is no specific argument that the source is wrong, it's probably OK. However, a further question arises: Why would one use a map when, likely, the key piece of information desired (not clear what in this case) should be in a piece of text somewhere? Graphics in newspapers ''in general'' frequently fudge the precise contours or borders and simplify in other ways for visual force. Using maps, ''in general'', from newspapers as ''sources'' can be problematic because there interpretation can be subjective (can be, not always). Sorry I'm not more helpful (hopefully someone else will hapen along). My French isn't good enough to read and offer an opinion on the source of the map.[[User:Bali ultimate|Bali ultimate]] ([[User talk:Bali ultimate|talk]]) 02:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
::This isn't ''its map'', but a map created by chartographer Philippe Rekacewicz, who claims to be using a book by [[Rexhep Qosja]] as a source. The thread isn't about Le Monde Diplomatique, which like every other newspaper doesn't take responsibility for the reliability of its external partners works. The map itself has many errors that make it unreliable. The most obvious are:
*[[File:Kosovo ethnic 2005.png|thumb|100px]](The census was co-conducted by the [[OSCE]]) Leposavic, Zubin Potok, Zvecan and Strpce are districts were the Serbian population is the majority. The map presents only Leposavic as an area of Serbian majority in the north and in the south has replaced Strpce with the area of Dragas, an Albanian majority area.
*[[File:Macedonia ethnic2002 03.png|thumb|left|100px]]The Rekacewicz map doesn't reflect the Albanian majority in Struga, Debar and it presents the area of [[Resen Municipality]] as 30-50% Albanian, while Albanians form only about 9-10% of the region.--[[User:ZjarriRrethues|'''— ''ZjarriRrethues'' —''']] [[User_talk:ZjarriRrethues|talk]] 07:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
:::All of that is beside the point. LMD, a reliable source, has published the map, which originates from a book published by [[Fayard]], a reputable publisher and itself a reliable source. The comments above about purported mistakes in the map appear to be original research, and in themselves do not invalidate its use. If you have reliable sources challenging the accuracy of the map, they could be cited in the relevant article. Our criterion, remember, is verifiability, not truth. This map is indeed verifiable from eminently reliable sources.[[User:RolandR|RolandR]] ([[User talk:RolandR|talk]]) 08:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
(unindent)It can hardly be called original research because my comment is based on the two census maps that you can check yourself. Yes, I agree that our criterion is verifiability and like Bali ultimate said it would be great if someone actually had the book. Btw the map doesn't originate from the book, it was created by a chartographer who claims to be using the book as a source.--[[User:ZjarriRrethues|'''— ''ZjarriRrethues'' —''']] [[User_talk:ZjarriRrethues|talk]] 09:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
:::The map of LMD is actually verified by an endless bibliography, so I see no problem with that all.[[User:Alexikoua|Alexikoua]] ([[User talk:Alexikoua|talk]]) 11:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
::::Which bibliography? The census itself challenges it. In addition is completely outdated: 1995 vs 2010 is a long time. We know that around 1 million people have emigrated within Albania only. Philippe Rekacewicz has made changes to Qosja's map in 1998, and there are no explanations on where he took the census data. Since he is not referencing his own work (he's simply saying that he has "updated" Qosja's map according to national censuses, without specifying which), although LMD is a reliable source, its cartographer's work may not be regarded as a reliable source: it fails reliability since there are no references. In fact putting the Albanians as a minority in the whole [[Korçë County]] is an absurdity. --[[User:Sulmues|'''<big>S</big>'''ulmues]] ([[User talk:Sulmues|talk]]) 12:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::We don't demand that our sources provide their own sources. LMD has its own editorial control and standards, and takes responsibility for what it publishes. It has always been considered a reliable source, and your own original research and synthesis above is certainly not sufficient reason to reconsider this. [[User:RolandR|RolandR]] ([[User talk:RolandR|talk]]) 13:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
(unindent)Newspapers don't take responsibility about what their external partners do. We're here to discuss the map of the chartographer. The map is supposedly a 1998 map based on Qosja with updated issues. Obviously it's a wrong map as anyone can observe by checking the census of Kosovo and the one of Macedonia(there's nothing OR about checking someone's claims)--[[User:ZjarriRrethues|'''— ''ZjarriRrethues'' —''']] [[User_talk:ZjarriRrethues|talk]] 13:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
:Z, do you have other sources which disagree? You seemed to be saying you did? I think that direction of discussion is more important than arguing the logic of the situation because this noticeboard is intended to be for quite rules-based discussion.--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 14:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

::I thought that the official census of Kosovo and Macedonia as sources were enough, but there are many sources disagreeing with the obvious errors of the map. Btw that cartographer created maps that contradict each other like this map which is about the same subject [http://mondediplo.com/maps/mosaic], but shows a different status(this map was created too on 2008). Philippe Rekacewicz created two maps about the same subject in 2008 and they contradict each other as well the official census of Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro etc. Andrew I can create a list of all the different sources that disagree with the cartographer but isn't the fact that he created two maps in the same time period about the same subject that contradict each other and the official census of numerous countries enough to prove that his work isn't reliable.--[[User:ZjarriRrethues|'''— ''ZjarriRrethues'' —''']] [[User_talk:ZjarriRrethues|talk]] 14:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

:::I always thought LMD was an excellent source, and I'm glad to see I have been vindicated. '''Background''': This dispute originated in the Commons over this map [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Presence_of_Albanians_in_%22Greater_Albania%22.png]. Originally the map was identical to version of LMD, then it was tampered with by ZjarriRrethues & Co. claiming "mistakes" (in other words, OR). Particularly odious is the use of grey to color the areas in Greece on the grounds that "no official data" apparently means "no data at all". When I present these users with data, e.g. from LMD, they claim "mistakes" and start [[WP:IDHT]]ing. It is impossible to get anywhere in the discussion in the Commons, so if some outside observers could participate, I would be much obliged. [[User:Athenean|Athenean]] ([[User talk:Athenean|talk]]) 14:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
(unindent)This isn't about LMD and please don't IDHT the fact that you have two maps created by the same cartographer published both by LMD and they contradict each other and the official census of numerous countries. Athenean we're not discussing LMD's reliability but the map's reliability. This a map by Philippe Rekacewicz saying that he's using Qosja as a source not a map happened to be on LMD.--[[User:ZjarriRrethues|'''— ''ZjarriRrethues'' —''']] [[User_talk:ZjarriRrethues|talk]] 15:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
:The two maps don't appear to me to contradict each other. LMD is RS, not much more to be said. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 15:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
::[[File:Kosovo ethnic 2005.png|thumb|100px|Census of Kosovo]]
[[File:Macedonia ethnic2002 03.png|thumb|left|100px|Census of Macedonia]]
[http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/cartes/albanie Map 1]
[http://mondediplo.com/IMG/pdf/mosaic.pdf Map 2]
The differences are obvious, so not much more to be said.--[[User:ZjarriRrethues|'''— ''ZjarriRrethues'' —''']] [[User_talk:ZjarriRrethues|talk]] 15:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
:Indeed, I agree with Zjarri: The [[Korçë County]] looks completely different in the second one as compared to the first one. --[[User:Sulmues|'''<big>S</big>'''ulmues]] ([[User talk:Sulmues|talk]]) 15:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
::The two maps are entirely compatible and make the same point, although one shows by means of hatching which two populations are ppresent and the other is a shaded thematic map of the percentage of Albanians only. Albanians are the majority in Albania apart from a few areas in the south east, in nearly all of Kosovo, as well as in some border areas of Montenegro and Macedonia. They tell the same story for [[Korçë County]], as well: both say that Albanians and another ethnic group are present. One map applies a different kind of shading to the north of the county than to the south; the other colours it all the same ''because it is a thematic map at county level''. And, on top of all that, it's in ''Le Monde Diplo'', a newspaper at the quality end of the market if ever there were one. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 16:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

:::I have opened a discussion thread at the dispute resolution board in the Commons here [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Disputes_noticeboard#.22Greater_Albania.22]. Participation by editors <s>from uninvolved nationalities is particularly welcome (and from involved nationalities much less so),<s>who participated in this thread would be great as I feel that is the only way progress will be made. [[User:Athenean|Athenean]] ([[User talk:Athenean|talk]]) 16:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
::::Uninvolved nationalities! No, we contribute as Wikipedia editors. I hereby formally declare myself to be involved because a) I speak French and Le Monde Diplomatique is a French publication and b) I am English and LMD is also published in English. We are all as involved or uninvolved as each other. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 16:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

:''[[Le Monde Diplomatique]]'' is a WP:RS – and if I remember correctly – is world renowned for its reliable high-quality maps. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]])
:Subject only to [[WP:NEWSORG]], ''[[Le Monde Diplomatique]]'' is as good a reliable source as you'll get. If you have other reliable sources that contradict LMD, then take it to the article talk page and follow the guidance in [[WP:YESPOV]]. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 03:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

==Independent Political Report==
Is the [http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/about/ Independent Political Report] a reliable source for news about minor political parties in the United States? Its website says it "is dedicated to covering America’s third parties and independent candidates, and providing a forum for the intelligent discussion thereof. IPR has been linked to by major sites like Politico, The Washington Post, Politics1, The American Spectator, Reason Magazine, and The American Conservative." [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 14:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
:Not RS. Articles do not appear to be signed. Editorial control does not appear to be in effect. Articles are primarily reprints of other news sources verbatim. Signed articles by accepted specialists would be okay. Unsigned articles do not appear to have any indication of oversight, verification, or editorial control. [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] ([[User talk:Fifelfoo|talk]]) 14:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
::Per above, depends on who wrote it and/or if it also appeared in more reliable source. Case by case basis cause has good stuff and has unreliable tripe. [[User:Carolmooredc|CarolMooreDC]] ([[User talk:Carolmooredc|talk]]) 22:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

== Polar codes, by Andrew Polar ==

The editor {{userlinks|C-processor}}, wants to add information about Polar codes, which he invented. His articles have been deleted for lack of notability; I recented removed a bit on it from [[Shannon–Fano coding]] (see [[Talk:Shannon–Fano_coding#Polar_codes]]). On my talk page, he tells me:

{{quote|Original concept is published by myself [http://www.ezcodesample.com/prefixer/prefixer_article.html Polar codes], it was found and incorporated by independent researcher into [http://code.google.com/p/lzham/ LZHAM] data compressor. ... Polar codes are also mentioned by expert in industry Matt Mahoney in his [http://mattmahoney.net/dc/text.html Large Text Compression Benchmark]. The site is long, search for Polar codes and you can find there an explanation. Explanation means recognition of novelty by industry expert. Mahoney do not explain other algorithms because they are known. I note that Polar codes is not an article. It is simple note in Wiki informing readers about one more way of entropy coding.}}

In which the "Large Text Compression Benchmark" is what looks like a personal web site: http://mattmahoney.net/dc/text.html.

I told him I don't think these meet [[WP:RS]], but I'll be happy to hear alternative views. Anybody? [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 07:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:The chances that anyone leave a message here are the same as winning lottery. The user who voted for keeping the article already exists. Here the link to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Polar_Tree discussion] Sebastian Garth nominated article for deletion but during discussion changed his opinion after I provided reference to Mahoney test inventory. [[User:C-processor|C-processor]] ([[User talk:C-processor|talk]]) 16:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

== Etymonline.com ==

Is Etymonline.com considered a reliable source? It was used as a source on the [[Puck (mythology)]] article until just recently, when [[User:Bloodofox|Bloodofox]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Puck_%28mythology%29&action=historysubmit&diff=380212531&oldid=380211297 removed it], saying it was unreliable. The site was used to source the etymology of three words, but was not the main or only source. The etymologies given on the site looked legitimate to me. And, the site [http://www.etymonline.com/sources.php lists] all of its sources. But, I want to know what other editors think. ---'''[[User:RepublicanJacobite|RepublicanJacobite]]'''''[[User talk:RepublicanJacobite|The'FortyFive']]'' 15:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Dicklyon

2010-09-21T07:00:08Z

C-processor: /* Removing Polar Coding from Shannon-Fano coding */

{{wikibreak|Dick|eventually. After nearly four years and 43K+ edits, I think a year off is a good idea.}}

''Please add new talk topics at the bottom of the page, and sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>''

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:Barnstar.png|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Original Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I'm not sure why you haven't picked up a bevy of these already, but thanks for all your effort, particularly in tracking down good sources with diagrams, etc., on the photography- and color-related articles (not to mention fighting vandalism). Those areas of Wikipedia are much richer for your work. Cheers! —[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[User_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 02:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
|}

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:Barnstar-camera.png|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Photographer's Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | To Dicklyon on the occasion of your [[:Image:Ivan Sutherland at CHM.jpg|photograph]] of [[Ivan Sutherland]] and his birthday! What a great gift. -[[User:SusanLesch]] 04:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
|}

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:Allaroundamazingbarnstar.png]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''All Around Amazing Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For your hard work in improving and watching over the Ohm's law article [[User:Spinningspark|'''SpinningSpark''']] 00:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
|}

{{The Original Barnstar|For your improvements to the [[Centrifugal force]] articles. Your [[WP:UCS|common sense]] approach of creating a summary-style article at the simplified title, explaining the broad concepts in a way that is [[WP:MTAA|accessible to the general reader]] and linking to the disambiguated articles, has provided Wikipedia's readership with a desperately needed place to explain in simple terms the basic concepts involved in understanding these related phenomena. [[User:Wilhelm meis|Wilhelm_meis]] ([[User talk:Wilhelm meis|talk]]) 14:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)}}

----

== Recreating [[Eugene F. Lally]] article ==

Can I get a copy of [[Eugene F. Lally]] as it was when you deleted it? I now have a number of secondary sources in hand, which I think will serve to establish notability, and I'd rather not start from scratch. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 19:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
:Sure, done at [[User:Dicklyon/Eugene F. Lally]]. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 22:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I may not get to working on this any time soon. If anyone wants copies of articles so they can help, let me know by email. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 17:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

== December 2009 ==
[[File:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] You currently appear to be engaged in an '''[[WP:Edit war|edit war]]''' according to the reverts you have made on [[:Pan]]. Note that the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|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 [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|discuss controversial changes]] to work towards wording and content that gains a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request [[WP:PP|page protection]]. Please stop the disruption, otherwise '''you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing'''.  [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 18:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

:I hardly think my edits there can be considered warring or disruptive, but I'll leave it alone for now. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 20:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

== MHP FAQ ==

Hi - I appreciate your efforts [[Talk:Monty Hall problem/FAQ|here]]. Glkanter seems to think the old version had a "pro-Morgan" POV. I have let him know I'd be happy to work with him to make it more NPOV. Although he rejected this offer outright, I think this is what's happening (by incremental editing - which is how it's actually supposed to work). -- [[user:Rick Block|Rick Block]] ([[user talk:Rick Block|talk]]) 18:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

== Speed of light - 2 errors mentioned in your edit summary ==

Hi. I fixed 2 errors (a misplaced semicolon and period) that I think you referred to in your edit summary. I'm curious why you didn't simply fix them yourself instead of reverting the other editor's edit. Regards, --[[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 21:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

:I couldn't see the point of the edit; the simple fix was to revert it. What was left? [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 21:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
::One thing I noticed was that the edit used periods and sentences that replaced the use of semicolons and consequent longer sentences. Like the editor, I think the periods and sentences style is better. --[[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 21:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

:::I don't deny it. I tend to use too many semicolons, indefensibly. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 21:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

::::That's so refreshing. I wish more editors had your attitude. Keep up the good work. Best regards, --[[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 21:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

::::A sabbatical! Best wishes, --[[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 18:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

== Wikibreak ==

A whole year? I hope you aren't serious. Regardless, best wishes for a healthy, happy, and fulfilling New Year.—[[User talk:Finell|Finell]] 18:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

== December 31 2009 ==
Hello, I'm trying to get the wiki for my band "The Secretions" undeleted. The user who deleted it has been banned from the site so I can't appeal to them, your name was listed on the deletion record too. Why exactly was it deleted? Why did you flag it for deletion? Apparently we weren't "well known enough" to warrant a wiki? We have been playing shows all around the US and Mexico for 17 years now. Maybe we aren't on a major label or on MTV but I really don't think that should be a requirement for wikipedia. A lot of our fans worked long and hard on that page and I would like to have it restored, for history's sake as well as a reference for future business contacts. There are a lot of other pages that used to cross-reference it as well. Any tips you could give me on who I need to contact about this would be great. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mickierat|Mickierat]] ([[User talk:Mickierat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mickierat|contribs]]) 23:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC) 

:I have no recollection of it. How about a link to the deletion discussion? [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 23:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

::See [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Secretions]]. -- [[user:Rick Block|Rick Block]] ([[user talk:Rick Block|talk]]) 00:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

:::Right. If there's new evidence of notability that can be cited, per [[WP:BAND]], I'd take it to [[Wikipedia:Deletion review]]. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 00:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

== Is this guy a quack? ==

Hey, Dick,

I've been reading ''The Return of the Sacred Architecture-: The Golden Ratio and the end of Modernism'' from Herbert Bangs. Specifically, the later chapters, after page 146, in which he starts talking about who has used "Sacred Geometry". He reached similar conclusions to the ones I've got so far: the golden ratio starts to appear ex-professedly with the discovery of the pentagram, then as "mean and extreme ratio" after the Greeks discover that it can also be produced from the square and pentagram, in the Renaissance it stops being used in architecture, not to return until Le Corbusier, who used it explicitly... However, he also attributes the presence of sacred Geometry, from the pyramids to the gothic cathedrals to the "brotherhood of Solomon" (the stone masons), sponsored by the Knights Templar in their later works... I noticed that there are indeed some eerie oddities like it's like it's relationship with the pitagorians (and the gate of Tartarus story), Ishtar, the number of the beast vs. the number of the followers of the lamb (both relate to a golden triangle trigonometrically) and the fact that the Gothic Cathedrals were created by masons, but a single brotherhood connecting all of that since Ancient Egypt, plus the Templars is just too much for me.

The guy, Bangs, has some good credentials, specially working for Buckminster, a key figure when it comes to geometry+architecture. However, that "bortherhood of Solomon" thing... do you think he's a quack?

--[[User:20-dude|20-dude]] ([[User talk:20-dude|talk]]) 17:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

== Request for Amendment to Arbitration ==

Hello, Dicklyon. This is to inform you that there is a [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Speed_of_Light|request for amendement]] regarding an arbitration case that you have commented on.[[User:Likebox|Likebox]] ([[User talk:Likebox|talk]]) 05:03, 8

=="megapixel lens"==

Hello Dick. Can I perhaps interest you in [[Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#.22megapixel_lens.22.2C_etc|this iggernant question]] of mine? -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 15:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

==Ray Blanchard==

Challenging a citation count as Not WP:RS? That's DICKLYON:BS. Knock it off. I have replaced the web of science with google scholar. You can do the count yourself, DICK. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.0.145.252|75.0.145.252]] ([[User talk:75.0.145.252|talk]]) 06:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC) 

:Please review [[WP:NPA]]. Also beware that playing with my name has led to a block in the past; you don't want to go down that route.

:The right place to discuss this would be on the article's discussion page; I could do the count myself, yes, and that would be [[WP:OR]]; Google scholar is a research tool, not a publisher of facts. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 02:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

== General blur spot ==

Dick, it looks like you added the definition for a general blur spot as “the diameter of the smallest circle that can contain 90% of the optical energy” to [[Circle of confusion]] on 21 February 2006. Do you happen to know where you got it? It seems to be a concern for another editor ... [[User:JeffConrad|JeffConrad]] ([[User talk:JeffConrad|talk]]) 09:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

:No, I don't recall. I've seen the concept of measuring spot size (or point spread function diameter) by an energy threshold, but I don't really recall where. I was attempting to put a more logical basis on what a diameter would mean, but I didn't base it on a source, so it wouldn't bother me much if it were removed. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 03:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

:The concept appears to go by "encircled energy". Lots of hits in optics books and papers, but not specifically tied to "circle of confusion". Thresholds of 95%, 90%, 84%, 80%, 70%, and 50% are easy to find. E.g. [http://books.google.com/books?id=6mb0C0cFCEYC&pg=PA99&dq=%22encircled+energy%22&as_brr=3&ei=BCjNS_-OC5TglQTwwrGbBw&cd=2#v=onepage&q=%22encircled%20energy%22&f=false this book]. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 04:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

::As I feared, it's not quite as simple as I had hoped. Warren Smith covers the same topic (citing the 84% value), but all that I have handy is his chapter in an old edition of the OSA ''Handbook of Optics'', so the treatment is cursory. A greater issue seems to me that the cited values apply to various conditions of “best focus”, so I'm not sure how to handle a defocused system. I've reviewed Hopkins, Sokseth, and Williams and Becklund, and at least at first glance, have not found much that is helpful. Do I have the right take on this? I'm not sure we need a lengthy treatise, but it's probably reasonable to at least mention that the real world isn't quite as simple as we present it in the article.

::Given that this seems to be more than just a simple query for a source supporting the statement, perhaps we should move this to the article Talk page. [[User:JeffConrad|JeffConrad]] ([[User talk:JeffConrad|talk]]) 08:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

== Color diagrams ==

Hi DickLyon, could you comment on the discussion we are having on my talk page at [[User_talk:PAR#colors_in_chromaticity_diagrams]]. Thanks. [[User:PAR|PAR]] ([[User talk:PAR|talk]]) 03:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

: I guess I should have put that somewhere other than PAR’s talk page; I just figured since (s)he made a bunch of chromaticity diagrams that have been up for a while, (s)he might have input. How’s your wiki break going, Dick? :-) –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[User_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 03:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

::Break is good. Your conversation is long. Is there a short question you want a comment on? [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 04:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

::: Okay, three questions: (1) is it a good idea to color in a chromaticity diagram all the way out to the spectrum locus? This seems a bit misleading to me, since only the colors in a computer display’s gamut can actually be represented accurately. In particular, a bunch of the colors commonly drawn near the spectrum locus are not remotely similar to actual colors at those chromaticities. (2) what’s a good choice for ''Y'' at each (''x'', ''y'') – currently in PAR’s diagrams and those derived from them, the maximum possible ''Y'' is chosen for each point, within sRGB, but this results in sort of nasty line luminance artifacts which users could easily mistake for a feature of chromaticity. (3) Should diagrams for uses like comparing RGB color spaces use the 1931 (''x'', ''y'') diagram, or the 1976 (''u''′, ''v''′) diagram? The latter is substantially more uniform w/r/t human vision. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[User_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 07:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

::::Depends on what you're trying to show; and depends on how much you respect the idea of sticking close to reliable sources. I would color just the triangle when illustrating an RGB color triangle, and color the whole thing when trying to illustrate the whole thing. Color accuracy is not the issue here. Even adding a light or dotted triangle to show the region in which the colors might be accurate is probably not that useful, and probably novel relative to most sources. The choice of Y is tricky; again, most sources don't show the kind of artifacts that you get by picking maximal Y in an RGB space, so we probably should avoid doing that. And yes I agree that a u'v' space is better for comparing color triangles and such. But it's so conventional to use xy that maybe we should do that, too? [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 22:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

::::: Most “reliable” sources are printed, either showing only a very rough schematic of color which is not remotely accurate, or avoiding any coloring whatsoever (just line drawings); it’s pretty impossible to get a very good representation of the whole chromaticity space with four-color printing, so this isn’t surprising. Chromaticity diagrams online are generally pretty inaccurate – the common representations are either a conversion from the printed ones, or based on a “pick max ''Y'' for each (''x'', ''y''), convert to RGB, then clip components to fall in range [0,1]” coloring strategy, which results in the whole top of the diagram having a uniform green color :). –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[User_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 17:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

:::: I pretty much agree with DickLyon on every point, except to reiterate that I think accuracy of chromaticity inside the sRGB gamut is important and every effort should be made to find a luminance which minimizes artifacts. [[User:PAR|PAR]] ([[User talk:PAR|talk]]) 23:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

== [[functional circle]] ==

Hello Dicklyon,
I remember you read the german pages of Wikipedia. So I would like to ask you if you could kindly read the following rather short page: [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funktionskreis Funktionskreis]. Please let me know, if there is a current translation such as “functional circle” for example? By the way there is an article of [[Jakob von Uexküll]] in English too. Many thanks. --[[User:Anaxo|Anaxo]] ([[User talk:Anaxo|talk]]) 20:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

:I don't read much German, but it looks like "functional circle" would be an OK translation, as that's what's found in several English-language books on the topic ([http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&tbo=p&tbs=bks%3A1&q=functional-circle&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= see here]). [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 05:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

::How can I return your very helpful services? --[[User:Anaxo|Anaxo]] ([[User talk:Anaxo|talk]]) 11:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

:Actually, a better English translation than "circle" might be "loop", as in "feedback loop", "control loop", etc. More ideas [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&tbo=p&tbs=bks%3A1&q=Uexkull+loop&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= here]. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 05:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
::Many many thanks!! --[[User:Anaxo|Anaxo]] ([[User talk:Anaxo|talk]]) 08:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::::in a German Medical Dictionary I found “feedback circuit” translation as well. --[[User:Anaxo|Anaxo]] ([[User talk:Anaxo|talk]]) 08:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

== Pythag ==

Hi! Your recent edit was rather coincidental with something I just started working on. I was going to follow up on the wikilink [[root rectangle]] that you provided on the talk page. I was just starting a draft that would keep the diagonal of a square and replace the triangle and pentagon with a discussion that uses root rectangles to find the square roots of 3, 5, etc. How does that sound? --[[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 04:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

:It seems odd to reference a pseudo-science topic like dynamic rectangles from a mathematics page. Surely there are more mathematical sources, actually talking about the topic of the article, that could be relied on instead. Maybe some of [http://books.google.com/books?lr=&as_brr=0&q=%22square+root+of+3%22+%22pythagorean+theorem%22&btnG=Search+Books these]? [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 05:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

::I looked at the link [http://books.google.com/books?lr=&as_brr=0&q=%22square+root+of+3%22+%22pythagorean+theorem%22&btnG=Search+Books these]. The first two looked like possibilities but google books wouldn't show any of the pages, AFAICT.

::Re "pseudoscience", I didn't understand that remark at all. In the article [[Dynamic rectangle]] that you previously gave the wikilink for, Figure 10 in the section [[Root_rectangle#Root_rectangles|Root rectangles]] is clearly a simple and sound way to construct lengths that are proportional to the square root of any integer, including square roots of 3, 5, etc. which are irrational. And Figure 10 appears to have a reliable source. If Figure 10 is unclear to you, I'm willing to try to explain it. Regards, --[[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 07:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

:::The figure and construction are clear enough, which is why I uploaded a scan to commons to illustrate this topic. But they come out of a topic that's not exactly mathematics; have you read any of Hambidge's stuff? I cleaned up the presentation to be as sensible as possible, but it's still basically just one guy's opinionated rantings. The point is just that for a math article, it would be better to use more rigorous or mathematical sources, rather than one person's unique terminology like "root rectangles" and "dynamic rectangles", which are unknown in math circles (see [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22root%20rectangle%22&oe=utf-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=bks:1&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wp sources]). [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 07:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

:::I reverted your edits there and added a link to the source, so that you can see more clearly that what you took to be letters r were actually square root symbols. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 07:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

::::Thanks for the correction. I added a note to the figure caption to clarify. If you don't like it, I have no problem with you reverting it.
::::Sorry, I wasn't aware that you were the one that uploaded Figure 10 and I also see from the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Root_rectangle&limit=500&action=history history] of the original "Root rectangle" article, that you were one of the main contributors, so you apparently know the subject better than I thought.
::::Re "one guy's opinionated rantings" etc - (I presume you mean the author Hambidge.) And from a cursory look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Root_rectangle discussion] of the original article Root rectangle, which started with Finnell's comment "This stub appears to be utter nonsense", why wasn't it deleted if you and Finnell felt so negatively about it? --[[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 14:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::Deleting nonsense is often harder, and less productive, than converting it to something less nonsensical. When deleting is easy, it's what I do (I'm pretty much a deletionist). But when a supporter makes deletion impossible, then finding sources and converting nonsense to what little can be said with verifiability is a good way to go. With Brews, I've found steadfast opposition to both approaches. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 17:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|Articles for deletion]] nomination of [[:Effective pixels]] ==

<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|42px]]</div>I have nominated [[Effective pixels]], an article that you created, for [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion]]. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Effective pixels]]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.{{-}}Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  [[User:Everyone Dies In the End|Everyone Dies In the End]] ([[User talk:Everyone Dies In the End|talk]]) 04:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

== Perspectives ==

Hi. There were some comments that you made that raises some personal issues in my mind, so I felt it may be better to discuss them here.

Re "As for 'it is only a bad idea if it does not display well,' I find that idea abhorrent." - To call it abhorrent seemed rather extreme to me. "Abhorrent" seems more appropriate for things like genocide, rather than for issues regarding angle brackets.

Re "Understandability and maintainability of the source is at least as important." - This seems to be completely from the perspective of an editor, rather than the readership, which is by far the greatest group that reads the article, and the vast majority of readers know nothing about what goes on behind the scenes of an article, IMO. Also note that unclear parts on an edit page can be made understandable by hidden comments.

I think that in discussions on an article talk page, one can get carried away with the drive to win an argument. My comments here are just meant as friendly feedback. Regards, --[[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 14:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

:Thanks. I appreciate your friendly feedback. I got a bit too dramatic on that one. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 18:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

== Angle brackets quiet ==

Hi. It's been kinda quiet over there. From the lack of response, I'm not sure whether or not I've satisfactorily answered the objections to option 7. Did any part of my responses to you answer any of your objections satisfactorily? If not, I'll probably drop the subject of angle brackets. Regards, --[[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 23:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

:My feelings about option 7 haven't changed; I'll just not repeat the words. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 08:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

== Peace and cooperation ==

Hi Dick: We've had some unfortunate encounters in the recent past, but we also had some good ones in the more distant past. I wonder what the future holds?

I'd like to extend the hope that we might find a mode of engagement that won't lead to bad tempers and bad actions.

I have in my mind two activities of mine that seem to cause friction.

One is my manner of editing. It appears to bother you when I make a large number of edits in quick succession. I have still this tendency, although I believe I have developed the habit of making a descriptive comment with each edit to indicate what it accomplishes. My editing, unlike yours, consists primarily of major additions or reconstructions of articles, and that activity requires big changes. I've found that no matter how long I spend in the editor window trying out different versions, once the thing is posted there is always something else that needs fixing. I would plead with you to indulge me in these difficulties.

A second is what you call "bloat". I understand this problem as a difference in opinion about the nature of a WP article. You like short treatments of a subject. I like treatments that introduce connected topics and digressions that could lead the reader to a wider picture of a topic and how it fits in with others. I believe that a successful example where we both contributed is the battery of articles on centrifugal force. There were several of these before we became involved, and now there are more. The topic has been introduced nicely in [[Centrifugal force]] which links to [[Absolute rotation]], [[History of centrifugal and centripetal forces]], [[Reactive centrifugal force]] and [[Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame)]]. This topic proved to be rather more complicated than I expected, and there was a great deal of genuine confusion from many participants that was the cause of this proliferation of articles. I find the result satisfactory. Do you?

The experience I draw from this example is that a great deal of patience is needed in handling these matters: many people have to be heard and heard again, and examples illustrating particular points are needed to make clear what is going on. In most cases we agreed on the points, although you didn't like the proliferation of examples.

I hope that example is something like what the future holds: discussion and evolution rather than appeals to AN/I and bad tempers.

What say you, Dick? [[User:Brews ohare|Brews ohare]] ([[User talk:Brews ohare|talk]]) 14:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

:John, it seems you are making some progress in recognizing and discussing the behaviors that annoy me and so many others. A year ago when we were fighting over bloat and such in [[Wavelength]], an admin who blocked me for edit warring suggested that I take such problems to wikiproject physics to get some knowledgeable community input. So I did that, several times, with nearly zero action as a result. I don't think I've filed any AN/I or RfA or other such actions against you, but when you pissed off other editors enough to do that, I reported my view of the problem and argued for what I thought would be mild but effective restraints on your rate of editing of any give page. Even after you were sanctioned, you wasted a lot of people's time with your fight to rewrite the rules, and took your problem editing style to non-physics topics, as I had told them you would. So, while I bear you no ill will, I do not look forward to having you work on articles that I care about. But I'm still trying to take the year off and write a book, so I'll pretty much try to stay out of it and see how it goes. Do I find the centrifugal force result satisfactory? Not really, it's still basically a pile of bloat, mostly written and illustrated by you with nearly zero collaboration, since anyone who pushed back was swamped by you, pretty like your recent work on the [[Pythagorean theorem]], where you took it from a large 40KB to a bloated 93KB in about 700 edits while pretty much fighting off attempts to moderate what you were doing. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 03:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

::A year is a short time to write a book. Good luck with it, it should be a fun enterprise.

::I see from your remarks no softening of attitude, and instead an entirely negative assessment of all my activities, of which absolutely none are seen as positive for WP. That is saddening. [[User:Brews ohare|Brews ohare]] ([[User talk:Brews ohare|talk]]) 11:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

:::No, that's an overreaction. I've tried to be clear about what behaviors I assess negatively, and it's far short of everything you do. On balance, I'd say that the negative effects like the huge time waste of many other editors and the net bloat is too much to pay for your contributions. I see no reason you can't correct that, by listening to others and collaborating with them. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 18:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

John Brews, I see you've managed to pick up another indefinite ban, based on beating the same dead horse. Way to go. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 05:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

== Absurd statement ==

Hi DickLyon - I saw you remove an "absurd statement" from the [[Black body]] article. I'm sorry to say that I think I was responsible for that statement. I recalculated the rate of visible photon emission from a 1 m^2 black body surface at 300 K and I get about 1 photon every 41 seconds rather than every 1000 years. But this is still negligible. Before I put the correct statement back into the article, I just wanted to make clear that the problem with the person you were answering was that they were talking about photon emission in the infrared, while the 41 second figure is for visible photons only (390-750 nanometers). [[User:PAR|PAR]] ([[User talk:PAR|talk]]) 11:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

:Sorry, I had missed the word "visible" in there, which is why I thought it was absurd. Perhaps it's not so absurd after all, though the concept of "visible photon" is still a bit fuzzy, and the calculation is "original research". Per [[WP:NOR]], it shouldn't really go in without a source, right? [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 18:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

:: Well, I figured a visible photon was any photon with a wavelength between 390 and 750 nm, and yeah, I wondered about OR. Its just integrating the black body intensity divided by h-nu from 390 to 750 nm, then multiply by 2 pi. I numerically integrated it in Mathematica to get the answer, its really straightforward, one line. I think its on the ragged edge of OR. Maybe Mathematica as a reference? [[User:PAR|PAR]] ([[User talk:PAR|talk]]) 02:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

:::It's totally OR, not on the ragged edge. Even at 700 nm, most photons are not "visible", in the sense that the cone opsins have very low quantum efficiency there. There's no wavelength that sensibly separates "visible" from otherwise, is there? Or is there a source for this notion of "visible photons"? [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 04:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

:::: I used the Wikipedia page [[visible light]] which gives the referenced statement: "A typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 390 to 750 nm". A "visible photon" is obviously one that is capable of causing a visual response, not one that actually does, so the probability of a cone opsin responding to a photon is not an issue. Is a photon in the middle of the visible spectrum a visible photon? Of course it is, even though the cone opsin response there is not 100 percent either. Anyway, we are getting off the track. Looking at the original edit that I made, the sentence read:

:::: <blockquote>Although Planck's formula predicts that a black body will radiate energy at all frequencies, the formula is only applicable when many photons are being measured. For example, a black body at room temperature (300 K) with one square meter of surface area will emit a photon in the visible range once every thousand years or so, meaning that for most practical purposes, the black body does not emit in the visible range.</blockquote>

:::: This sentence has been messed with to now read:

:::: <blockquote>Due to the rapid fall-off of emitted photons with decreasing energy, a black body at room temperature (300 K) with 1 m2 of surface area emits a visible photon every thousand years or so, which is negligible for most purposes.</blockquote>

:::: which is now a sort of non-sequitur stuck in the middle, with no apparent point to it. The concept of "visible light" or, equivalently, "visible photon" is a fairly solid concept, and the wavelength range of 390-750 is a referenced number. All I wanted to do was to make the point that in the visible range, blackbody radiation at 300 K is not worth thinking about. For a reader who wants to know what is meant by "not worth thinking about" a concrete example serves best, and that's why I wrote it. If I use Mathematica to generate a graph of black body intensity, thats not OR. Is a numerical integration of that same equation OR? Because thats all it is. [[User:PAR|PAR]] ([[User talk:PAR|talk]]) 05:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::I recommend you take the issue to the article talk page. I'll stay out of it. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 06:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::: I don't feel that contentious about it, besides, we tend to agree on things more than disagree. If you think it should not be there or have a better idea, then ok. [[User:PAR|PAR]] ([[User talk:PAR|talk]]) 14:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Photons "in the visible wavelength range" would be more clear and objective, I think, but take it up on the article talk page. I'm going to try to respect my break. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 16:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

== Crop factor ==

"the field of view of the APS-C will be 1.6x of the original" sounds backwards; it has a smaller field of view, by 1.6x sounds like larger.

-I'll do a bit of a rewrite on this one.

" "the crop sensor has much smaller pixels and it will exhibit less contrast and saturation than its full frame counterpart" is pure superstition, since pixel size has no bearing on contrast or saturation. "

-I don't know where you're getting your information, but bigger pixels resulting greater contrast and saturation has been tested and proven by many practicing pros, including Ken Rockwell.
At the same time, bigger pixels allows for sharper images, better resolution of detail, amongst other things. We don't use full frame for no reason.

" "One common misconception is that..." is the kind of statement that absolutely requires attribution or a source of some kind. "

-I'll remove this line altogether, considering that it was on Wiki that someone posted the incorrect information.

" Your statement about DOF didn't specify enough what's being kept constant, which would be needed to judge whether it might be correct, and it replaced a correct and fairly precisely worded statement. "

-I hate to say this, but this is the basics in photography, you move closer to the subject, while focusing on them the DOF is brought closer to MFD, while away from infinity, appearing to have more background blur. The opposite will be reaching infinity, where all things "far away" appears to fall on the same flat plan, so when focusing to infinity those "near infinity" all appear to be acceptably sharp. Of course theres also hyperfocal distance, when focusing to this distance all from 1/2 that distance to infinity will be acceptably sharp.

" "The major disadvantage is the change in perspective, since the focal length has not actually changed. In the case of a 50mm lens, it will be like shooting a 80mm shot with the perspective of 50mm." is uninterpretable within the usual meaning of "perspective". "

-I don't know if you're a photographer, but this makes perfect sense, I'll rewrite to clarify: The full frame equivalent would be shooting with a 80mm lens' field of view while having a 50mm lens' perspective.

Please don't claim information to be wrong without provide with some counterarguments, at least 20% of the stuff on the crop factor page is incorrect and in fact the source responsible for a lot of the misconception.

—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Channel 49|Channel 49]] ([[User talk:Channel 49|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Channel 49|contribs]]) 05:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC) 

:I recommend you seek approval for these changes on the article talk page, as I won't be editing much, and might just revert some if they don't make sense. Especially if you think there are errors in the article, the talk page is the place to air that observation. See [http://dicklyon.com/tech/Photography/DepthOfField-Lyon.pdf] for an in-depth explanation of these issues, from my own point of view; other good papers are linked on the [[Depth of field]] article, and we're all in agreement on the facts. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 05:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

::Well everything I've stated here has indirection relation to DOF but they don't challenge it. The DOF calculations on crop is done through this: [http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html], same lens on FF and crop, same subject distance, crop will has less DOF. I'm no expert on DOF, but I'd think that calculator is correct. Anyways, I don't have time go back and forth to get something approved, I'm just sharing some information on common misconceptions and trying to removed incorrect or not completely correct facts from the page. If it takes me a tremendous amount of time, going through many steps, I'll just not do it altogether, I have better things to be doing such as taking photos. This was a quick write, but since its become complicated, I don't plan on investing that time. [[User:Channel 49|Channel 49]] ([[User talk:Channel 49|talk]]) 06:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

:::Sharing info on misconceptions is often dangerous or inappropriate, compared to just saying what's true, as misconceptions are seldom documented in [[WP:RS]]. Yes I agree that the DOF Master site gives correct answers, but if you don't specify exactly what conditions you are considering before specifying greater or less DOF, the result can't really be verifiable. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 05:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

::::Rather, the correct wording would be correcting common misconceptions, a few of which I see on the crop factor page. You cannot judge a crop factor when theres change in perspective, or distance, that doesn't make a lot of sense. The comparison of two camera's DOF is when all other factors are the same, same lens, same aperture, same subject, same distance to subject, etc. What the page currently says is that DOF is greater on the crop camera, which is just an misinterpretation of the "foot zooming" that the photographer used to frame the picture the same way, but now the perspective has changed as well as focus, the DOF area itself, and thus the background will look more blurred.

::::"On the other hand, compared to the 35 mm-equivalent focal length shooting a similarly-framed shot, the smaller camera's depth of field is greater."

::::-This statement is equally meaningless, it does not make sense to frame the same shot with a FF and crop considering the perspective in the two are completely different, thus they are not the same picture. [[User:Channel 49|Channel 49]] ([[User talk:Channel 49|talk]]) 06:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::On the article talk page, you'd have a chance of finding someone who understands your point. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 06:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

== Perspective ==
"The major disadvantage would be the lack of change in perspective, since the focal length has not actually changed it will be like shooting with the ''field of view'' of a 320mm lens on a full frame sensor while having the perspective of 200mm lens."

-Theres the keyword I missed.

Also, what is behind the assertion that "The resulting image will appear to have a less pleasing background blur, unlike using a real 320mm lens on a full frame sensor."?

-This is in relation to full frame, as in the last sentence. Seems repetitive to add it again, all it means is that the perspective is different due to focal length not being changed. The perspective of a 320mm is appears a lot more "blurred" than a 200mm, simply due to perspective.

[[User:Channel 49|Channel 49]] ([[User talk:Channel 49|talk]]) 06:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

:The phrase "while having the perspective of 200mm lens" makes no sense. Perspective is a function of where you shoot from, and in some interpretations a function of your field of view. It is never a property of a focal length.

::Again, in reference to full frame, the perspective of where you stand when you shoot with a 200mm lens on full frame.

:"The perspective of a 320mm is appears a lot more "blurred" than a 200mm, simply due to perspective" also makes no sense. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 17:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

::This is a lot easier to demonstrate. It could be more detailed, as I have explained on the talk page. Perhaps it could be worded better, but it makes perfect sense if you read that in detail.

== variations of blue deletion discussion ==

You might be interested if you didn't see it in the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Variations of blue]]. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[User_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 15:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

== Your msg ==

I think you made a mistake, I never edited any article about catholic prediction. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/98.16.178.59|98.16.178.59]] ([[User talk:98.16.178.59|talk]]) 21:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC) 

:That was two years, and it was [[cathodic protection]]; someone using the same IP address as you. Don't worry about it. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 21:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

== Templates ==

If a template is at TfD it is disruptive to remove it from articles. So please don't. If and when it gets deleted then it can be removed, but removing before consensus is reached is prejudging the outcome. [[User:Fences and windows|Fences]]&[[User talk:Fences and windows|Windows]] 00:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

:Interesting theory. I was just going to remove it from the articles, but then thought a TfD would be more appropriate. What's wrong with doing both? [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 04:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
::It's the same reasoning as why you shouldn't depopulate a category before you nominate it for deletion. It makes it seem like a foregone conclusion: "Oh, if it's not being used, why should we keep it?" will be a common thought. If a template is removed, taken to TfD, and then not deleted, we'll need to restore its uses. [[User:Fences and windows|Fences]]&[[User talk:Fences and windows|Windows]] 21:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
:::On the contrary, if it's not deleted, we'll have to remove all its uses and explain each one individually. Unless someone comes up with a reason for this silly template... [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 01:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
::::A bot automatically removed templates about to be deleted. You shouldn't worry about that. [[User:Jhenderson777|Jhenderson777]] ([[User talk:Jhenderson777|talk]]) 18:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

==Color template.==
Please join the [[Wikipedia: WikiProject Color]] discussion page about the new idea about the template. Thank you. [[User:Jhenderson777|Jhenderson777]] ([[User talk:Jhenderson777|talk]]) 18:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

::Never mind. I noticed you replied on the template discussion page. Sorry. [[User:Jhenderson777|Jhenderson777]] ([[User talk:Jhenderson777|talk]]) 18:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

==Requesting help with WP:SPS rewording==
I have made the request to consider re wording of [[WP:SPS]] to have a more concise and simple definition. Could you please help with this?[[Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Self_Published_Sources_is_worded_in_a_way_which_is_too_broad]]

Thanks --[[User:Hfarmer|Hfarmer]] ([[User talk:Hfarmer|talk]]) 14:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

:I think that trying to solve that problem by hacking policy will be unlikely to lead to a satisfactory outcome, epsecially if the change is to narrow definitions. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 15:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

== Wikipedia:WikiProject_Golden_ratio ==

I was just wondering what you think of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Golden_ratio]]. You're one of only six members listed there, and the only one currently editing. The founder and next editor in line haven't edited in a while. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ([[Special:Contributions/TenPoundHammer|Many otters]] • [[:User talk:TenPoundHammer|One bat]] • [[User:TenPoundHammer|One hammer]]) 03:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

:I didn't even know it existed. Ancient history. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 14:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

== saiful_9999 ==
Could you me , please Sir that why are you considering [[clipping path service]] is a company promotion article? As I know the article is fully designed to provide information about clipping path service in the digital world.

:Use the linked article-for-deletion discussion page to make your case. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 15:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

==Adding image==
Could you say me please about image adding process in the Wikipedia, Sir? [[User:Saiful 9999|Md Saiful Alam]] ([[User talk:Saiful 9999|talk]]) 03:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

:Under "toolbox" on the left, use the "upload file" link ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload here]). Then follow the instructions about how to upload, specify a license, etc. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 04:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
: Thanks [[User:Saiful 9999|Md Saiful Alam]] ([[User talk:Saiful 9999|talk]]) 04:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

==Clipping path service==
Unfortunately,The article clipping path service has been redirected to [[clipping path]] according to the administrative decision. Well, obviously I have respect and honor to the decision. At this situation, can I edit the [[clipping path]] article by adding content, Sir? Thanks for your consideration. [[User:Saiful 9999|Md Saiful Alam]] ([[User talk:Saiful 9999|talk]]) 03:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

:Yes, you can add a short section on clipping path service to the clipping path article, as long as what you say is sourced. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 04:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
:Sir, I have added a new section “clipping path service” in the [[clipping path]] article, If any mistaking occurred in the editing, please let me know. Thanks. [[User:Saiful 9999|Md Saiful Alam]] ([[User talk:Saiful 9999|talk]]) 06:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

== Digital filters ==

'''Thanks''' I don't think I'll bother fixing the SVG, as I'm pretty ignorant about the language. I've made a few images before, but it takes me awhile and I'm honestly just not invested in them. I appreciate your note, though. —[[User:Koavf|Justin (koavf)]]❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯ 20:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

== Color Blindness ==

Hello, I am responding to the removal of the EL I added to the color blindness page. I am confident that if you took the time to compare my website as a resource on the topic to the other EL's that you dont object to, you will find that mine is significantly more detailed and informative. I imagine you deal with spammers frequently? I'm not here to spam links to my website, i'm here because I am color blind and I have created a website with a goal to be as informative and useful as possible to others with my condition. Awareness and education on the issue are important to me. I belive my website can extend a persons educational experience should they reach the end of the wiki article with questions, or in search of some solid and comprehensive online tests, and information that goes beyond the science of the condition. For example, living with the condition, associated myths, and much more. In fairness, I believe my website most certainly provides a significantly better educational experience than numerous other external links on this page, So i'd appreciate you undoing your edit, or completing your cleanup task and removing other sites 'with no value'.
[[Special:Contributions/203.144.30.47|203.144.30.47]] ([[User talk:203.144.30.47|talk]]) 01:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

:The appropriate process for you to follow is described at [[Wikipedia:EL#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest]]. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 04:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
: Thankyou for the link, it seems i am not meant to add my own website. This is dissapointing because my website has a genuine and valuable contribution to the readers of this wiki page, I suppose i'll go find out how to get to that pages 'talk' and hopefully one of you wiki-nazi's will take time out of your busy day to review my contribution and add it. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/203.144.30.47|203.144.30.47]] ([[User talk:203.144.30.47|talk]]) 04:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC) 

::Use the "discussion" link at the top of the article. And please also review [[WP:NPA]] and realize that complaining about the rules and the community is not the most likely path to a good outcome. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 04:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

== Removing Polar Coding from Shannon-Fano coding ==
I thought you were another incompetent in the art of data compression individual but after visiting your profile I understood that I was wrong. You understand that Polar Coding is new technique of entropy coding leading to certain advantage at run-time and purposely deleted this section because you don't want any other name appear near Shannon, Fano and Huffman because it is not yours but someone else. Am I right?
The list of entropy coding in Wikipedia is this:
Shannon–Fano, Shannon–Fano–Elias, Huffman, Adaptive Huffman, Arithmetic, Range, Golomb, Universal (Gamma, Exp-Golomb, Fibonacci, Levenshtein). The last one Levenshtein has less independent publications than Polar Coding. Needless to say many of them are not very effective but mentioned because reader of Wikipedia should decide what to use and Wikipedia informs of what is available. On that reason Polar Coding should be in Wikipedia because it has strong advantages over many but some disadvantage as any other. It falls under category Wiki informs reader decides.
I'm surprised how many people blocking advanced technologies. I can show everybody that you do not make real decision and there are other people that do that. Why don't you remove article about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduced_Offset_Lempel_Ziv ROLZ] algorithm. It stays there for a long time, does not explain anything, the algorithm is introduced in WinRK program that is proprietary, disassembling is against end-user agreement. No publications at all, no independent sources. Go ahead and try to remove the article. You will quickly be told not to touch it or your account will be removed. This is how Wiki is functioning. One rule for some and other rule for people without connections. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:C-processor|C-processor]] ([[User talk:C-processor|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/C-processor|contribs]]) 06:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC) 

:No, you're not right. I haven't looked at it enough to "understand that Polar Coding is new technique of entropy coding leading to certain advantage at run-time". And I didn't remove it because I "don't want any other name appear near Shannon, Fano and Huffman because it is not yours but someone else." I removed it because I'm an experienced wikipedia editor who respects [[WP:COI]] and [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] and such. If you have sources that you think satisfy those requirements, tell me here, and I'll put it back, so you won't need to be tempted to do it yourself. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 06:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:Also see [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]]. It is not my job to police all the other stuff, just what I happen to notice. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 06:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

::Original concept is published by myself [http://www.ezcodesample.com/prefixer/prefixer_article.html Polar codes], it was found and incorporated by independent researcher into [http://code.google.com/p/lzham/ LZHAM] data compressor. You can't find evidence of usage in production of Levenshtein codes that have similar purpose also Gamma and Fibonacci. Yes, there are theoretical articles but not product that use it. In case of Polar codes there is product. Polar codes are also mentioned by expert in industry Matt Mahoney in his [http://mattmahoney.net/dc/text.html Large Text Compression Benchmark]. The site is long, search for Polar codes and you can find there an explanation. Explanation means recognition of novelty by industry expert. Mahoney do not explain other algorithms because they are known. I note that Polar codes is not an article. It is simple note in Wiki informing readers about one more way of entropy coding. [[User:C-processor|C-processor]] ([[User talk:C-processor|talk]]) 06:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:I agree with you on [[Levenshtein coding]] and [[Reduced Offset Lempel Ziv]]; neither has any apparent sources to establish notability. So I have proposed deletion of both. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 06:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

::It looks like you have an itch for removing of everything. There people that are very interested in maintaining ROLZ article. I can't wait to watch how they restore the article and explain you the limits of where rules extends. In the meantime I'm still wondering why those two links from independent people who both are professionals are not enough for my short note to be in Wiki. Do you know that publication in peer reviewed journal decided by one individual.

User talk:Dicklyon

2010-09-21T06:50:53Z

C-processor: /* Removing Polar Coding from Shannon-Fano coding */

User:C-processor/Polar Tree

2010-08-25T04:15:06Z

C-processor: /* The concept */

{{AfDM|page=Polar Tree|year=2010|month=August|day=24|substed=yes}}


{{multiple issues|orphan =August 2010|notability =August 2010|wikify =August 2010|refimprove =August 2010}}

== The concept ==
'''Polar Tree''' is set of binary codes assigned to a set of symbols in the process known in [[information theory]] as [[entropy encoding]]. The goal is to reduce the length taken by encoded fragment. Other binary trees created for the same purpose are known as [[Shannon-Fano coding]] and [[Huffman coding]]. All three methods of constructing codes are called prefix coding because non of these codes is the prefix of another code, which allows unmistakably to restore sequence of symbols from encoded binary stream. Historically [[Shannon-Fano coding]] was introduced earlier than [[Huffman coding]] and as, it was proven, [[Huffman coding]] provides shortest possible encoded message for a given set of frequencies of occurrences. On that reason [[Huffman coding]] replaced [[Shannon-Fano coding]] for a very long time until adaptive entropy encoding technique was introduced and replaced completely static encoding. In adaptive encoding the tree is not output into encoded stream but updated in identical way during both encoding and decoding operations. The tree is created based on already seen symbols and applied to those new symbols that appear in the message. On that reason the difference in codes is not as important as precision in estimation frequencies for symbols that did not yet occur. For example, presume in adaptive encoding we start from default tree and update it after every 1000 symbols. In both encoding and decoding we may use statistics collected on first 1000 symbols and recreate the tree. New tree will be applied for encoding of next 1000 symbols, that are not yet occurred, and usage of [[Shannon-Fano coding]] or [[Huffman coding]] makes fraction of percent in the length of encoded fragment, while adaptation interval, strategy in updating frequencies or other mechanism of tree adjustment may provide significantly higher contribution into compression ratio. On that reason, in adaptive algorithms, the most important role plays the speed and convenience in recreation of the tree rather than its optimality, because optimality exists only for provided frequencies while actual frequencies in adaptive encoding are always different from presumed. Polar tree, in general case, is different from Huffman tree although may coincide in many cases, but it can be created or updated by very small number of operations, what makes it attractive in usage in different adaptive algorithms, where trees have to be updated frequently. In the table below the codes for all three trees are presented for the same example as considered in [[Shannon-Fano coding]].

{| class="wikitable"
!Symbol
!Frequency
!Huffman codes
!Shannon-Fano codes
!Polar codes
|- align="center"
|A
|15
|0
|00
|0
|- align="center"
|B
|7
|100
|01
|100
|- align="center"
|C
|6
|101
|10
|101
|- align="center"
|D
|6
|110
|110
|110
|- align="center"
|E
|5
|111
|111
|111
|}

In this particular case Polar codes are identical to Huffman codes, but in general case there may be some difference. Same is true for Shannon-Fano coding, they might be identical to Huffman as well.

The algorithm of constructing of Polar codes goes over code lengths generation as it is shown in the next table.

{| class="wikitable"
!Symbol
!Original frequency
!First run
!Second run
!Third run
!Code length
!Code
|- align="center"
|A
|15
|8
|16
|32
|1
|0
|- align="center"
|B
|7
|4
|8
|8
|3
|100
|- align="center"
|C
|6
|4
|8
|8
|3
|101
|- align="center"
|D
|6
|4
|8
|8
|3
|110
|- align="center"
|E
|5
|4
|8
|8
|3
|111
|}

The starting data for building of the tree must be sorted list of all frequencies. The sum of all frequencies 39 is rounded up to a next power 2 number, which is 64, and, all frequencies are rounded down to the next power 2 number. On the next step we move top to bottom and double every frequency, which can be doubled without exceeding the total of 64, which we call target total. The result 16,8,8,8,8 is shown in the fourth column. Now we keep repeating previous step until sum of all frequencies becomes equal to target total. As we can see we need to repeat this step only once and obtain final list 32,8,8,8,8. The difference in bit lengths between modified frequency and target total is the code length for each symbol in the tree.
Having code lengths we build actual codes by adding 1 and shifting to the left of each coding fragment to correspondent length. The last operation of building actual codes from the code lengths is known and used in building Huffman trees and also known as compact way of saving trees. So only generation of code lengths constitutes novelty of algorithm. Operation of double of frequency is binary shift. When we add intermediate frequencies the numbers have only one positive bit and number of runs is rarely more than 10 even for trees built for 256 symbols. All that makes code lengths generation extremely fast and allows frequent updates of the tree in adaptive encoding, which overwhelmingly compensate slight non-optimality of Polar coding compared to Huffman.

== History ==
The algorithm is published in July 2010 and backed up by [http://ezcodesample.com/prefixer/prefixer_article.html DEMO program], which offers additional optimization by adaptive resorting of symbols on every step.

== Independent implementation ==
Although the method was recently introduced it was already beta tested in [http://code.google.com/p/lzham/ LZHAM algorithm].

== Additional optimization by adaptive sorting ==
The advantage of the algorithm is quick generation of code lengths. The trees, however, are replaced periodically after each relatively large fragment. To improve compression in [http://ezcodesample.com/prefixer/prefixer_article.html original DEMO program] the author suggests concept of floating leafs on the tree. This floating leafs concept is adaptive sorting on every step according to accumulated frequency. Presume in the middle of adaptation interval symbol B became more frequent than A. In this case they simply switch while tree stays the same and most frequent symbol encoded by shortest code already in the middle of adaptation interval. The same scenario is reproduced in decoding thus making decoding unmistakeably reversible. The additional advantage of this adaptive sorting or floating leafs is, that at the point of recreation of the tree, symbols are already sorted and time is not spent on sorting alphabet according to frequency.

== Limitations of the method ==
Polar tree is subject to the same limitations in data compression as other two binary prefix coding. It can not possibly compress anything to less than 1 bit per symbol. And it might be far from statistical limit established by [[entropy]] for the data that could be compressed to low entropy. In the same way as [[Huffman coding]] and [[Shannon-Fano coding]] application of Polar coding is justified to data with large alphabets, which entropy is at least over 4 bits/symbol. According to description of LZHAM Polar coding was applied to literals left after application of LZ algorithm. As it is known literals are not very well compressed and may represent good ground for application of either of binary coding technique.

== External links ==
*[http://ezcodesample.com/prefixer/prefixer_article.html A. Polar, Non-Huffman Binary Tree. July, 2010]

User:C-processor/Polar Tree

2010-08-25T04:08:18Z

C-processor: /* Additional optimization by adaptive sorting */

{{AfDM|page=Polar Tree|year=2010|month=August|day=24|substed=yes}}


{{multiple issues|orphan =August 2010|notability =August 2010|wikify =August 2010|refimprove =August 2010}}

== The concept ==
'''Polar Tree''' is set of binary codes assigned to a set of symbols in the process known in [[information theory]] as [[entropy encoding]]. The goal is to reduce the length taken by encoded fragment. Other binary trees created for the same purpose are known as [[Shannon-Fano coding]] and [[Huffman coding]]. All three methods of constructing codes are called prefix coding because non of these codes is the prefix of another code, which allows unmistakably to restore sequence of symbols from encoded binary stream. Historically [[Shannon-Fano coding]] was introduced earlier than [[Huffman coding]] and as, it was proven, [[Huffman coding]] provides shortest possible encoded message for a given set of frequencies of occurrences. On that reason [[Huffman coding]] replaced [[Shannon-Fano coding]] for a very long time until adaptive entropy encoding technique was introduced and replaced completely static encoding. In adaptive encoding the tree is not output into encoded stream but updated in identical way during both encoding and decoding operations. The tree is created based on already seen symbols and applied to those new symbols that appear in the message. On that reason the difference in codes is not as important as precision in estimation frequencies for symbols that did not yet occur. For example, presume in adaptive encoding we start from default tree and update it after every 1000 symbols. In both encoding and decoding we may use statistics collected on first 1000 symbols and recreate the tree. New tree will be applied for encoding of next 1000 symbols, that are not yet occurred, and usage of [[Shannon-Fano coding]] or [[Huffman coding]] makes fraction of percent in the length of encoded fragment, while adaptation interval, strategy in updating frequencies or other mechanism of tree adjustment may provide significantly higher contribution into compression ratio. On that reason, in adaptive algorithms, the most important role plays the speed and convenience in recreation of the tree rather than its optimality, because optimality exists only for provided frequencies while actual frequencies in adaptive encoding are always different from presumed. Polar tree, in general case, is different from Huffman tree although may coincide in many cases, but it can be created or updated by very small number of operations, what makes it attractive in usage in different adaptive algorithms, where trees have to be updated frequently. In the table below the codes for all three trees are presented for the same example as considered in [[Shannon-Fano coding]].

{| class="wikitable"
!Symbol
!Frequency
!Huffman codes
!Shannon-Fano codes
!Polar codes
|- align="center"
|A
|15
|0
|00
|0
|- align="center"
|B
|7
|100
|01
|100
|- align="center"
|C
|6
|101
|10
|101
|- align="center"
|D
|6
|110
|110
|110
|- align="center"
|E
|5
|111
|111
|111
|}

In this particular case Polar codes are identical to Huffman codes, but in general case there may be some difference. Same is true for Shannon-Fano coding, they might be identical to Huffman as well.

The algorithm of constructing of Polar codes goes over code lengths generation as it is shown in the next table.

{| class="wikitable"
!Symbol
!Original frequency
!First run
!Second run
!Third run
!Code length
!Code
|- align="center"
|A
|15
|8
|16
|32
|1
|0
|- align="center"
|B
|7
|4
|8
|8
|3
|100
|- align="center"
|C
|6
|4
|8
|8
|3
|101
|- align="center"
|D
|6
|4
|8
|8
|3
|110
|- align="center"
|E
|5
|4
|8
|8
|3
|111
|}

The starting data for building of the tree must be sorted list of all frequencies. The sum of all frequencies 39 is rounded up to a next power 2 number, which is 64, and, all frequencies are rounded down to the next power 2 number. On the next step we move top to bottom and double every frequency, which can be doubled without exceeding the total of 64, which we call target total. The result 16,8,8,8,8 is shown in the fourth column. Now we keep repeating previous step until sum of all frequencies becomes equal to target total. As we can see we need to repeat this step only once and obtain final list 32,8,8,8,8. The difference in bit lengths between modified frequency and target total is the code length for each symbol in the tree.
Having code lengths we build actual codes by adding 1 and shifting to the left of each coding fragment to correspondent length. The last operation of building actual codes from the code lengths is known and used in building Huffman trees and also known as compact way of saving trees. So only generation of code lengths constitute novelty of algorithm. Operation of double of frequency is binary shift. When we add intermediate frequencies the numbers have only one positive bit and number of runs is rarely more than 10 even for trees built for 256 symbols. All that makes code lengths generation extremely fast and allows frequent updates of the tree in adaptive encoding, which overwhelmingly compensate slight non-optimality of Polar coding compared to Huffman.

== History ==
The algorithm is published in July 2010 and backed up by [http://ezcodesample.com/prefixer/prefixer_article.html DEMO program], which offers additional optimization by adaptive resorting of symbols on every step.

== Independent implementation ==
Although the method was recently introduced it was already beta tested in [http://code.google.com/p/lzham/ LZHAM algorithm].

== Additional optimization by adaptive sorting ==
The advantage of the algorithm is quick generation of code lengths. The trees, however, are replaced periodically after each relatively large fragment. To improve compression in [http://ezcodesample.com/prefixer/prefixer_article.html original DEMO program] the author suggests concept of floating leafs on the tree. This floating leafs concept is adaptive sorting on every step according to accumulated frequency. Presume in the middle of adaptation interval symbol B became more frequent than A. In this case they simply switch while tree stays the same and most frequent symbol encoded by shortest code already in the middle of adaptation interval. The same scenario is reproduced in decoding thus making decoding unmistakeably reversible. The additional advantage of this adaptive sorting or floating leafs is, that at the point of recreation of the tree, symbols are already sorted and time is not spent on sorting alphabet according to frequency.

== Limitations of the method ==
Polar tree is subject to the same limitations in data compression as other two binary prefix coding. It can not possibly compress anything to less than 1 bit per symbol. And it might be far from statistical limit established by [[entropy]] for the data that could be compressed to low entropy. In the same way as [[Huffman coding]] and [[Shannon-Fano coding]] application of Polar coding is justified to data with large alphabets, which entropy is at least over 4 bits/symbol. According to description of LZHAM Polar coding was applied to literals left after application of LZ algorithm. As it is known literals are not very well compressed and may represent good ground for application of either of binary coding technique.

== External links ==
*[http://ezcodesample.com/prefixer/prefixer_article.html A. Polar, Non-Huffman Binary Tree. July, 2010]

User:C-processor/Polar Tree

2010-08-25T04:06:52Z

C-processor: /* Additional optimization by adaptive sorting */

{{AfDM|page=Polar Tree|year=2010|month=August|day=24|substed=yes}}


{{multiple issues|orphan =August 2010|notability =August 2010|wikify =August 2010|refimprove =August 2010}}

== The concept ==
'''Polar Tree''' is set of binary codes assigned to a set of symbols in the process known in [[information theory]] as [[entropy encoding]]. The goal is to reduce the length taken by encoded fragment. Other binary trees created for the same purpose are known as [[Shannon-Fano coding]] and [[Huffman coding]]. All three methods of constructing codes are called prefix coding because non of these codes is the prefix of another code, which allows unmistakably to restore sequence of symbols from encoded binary stream. Historically [[Shannon-Fano coding]] was introduced earlier than [[Huffman coding]] and as, it was proven, [[Huffman coding]] provides shortest possible encoded message for a given set of frequencies of occurrences. On that reason [[Huffman coding]] replaced [[Shannon-Fano coding]] for a very long time until adaptive entropy encoding technique was introduced and replaced completely static encoding. In adaptive encoding the tree is not output into encoded stream but updated in identical way during both encoding and decoding operations. The tree is created based on already seen symbols and applied to those new symbols that appear in the message. On that reason the difference in codes is not as important as precision in estimation frequencies for symbols that did not yet occur. For example, presume in adaptive encoding we start from default tree and update it after every 1000 symbols. In both encoding and decoding we may use statistics collected on first 1000 symbols and recreate the tree. New tree will be applied for encoding of next 1000 symbols, that are not yet occurred, and usage of [[Shannon-Fano coding]] or [[Huffman coding]] makes fraction of percent in the length of encoded fragment, while adaptation interval, strategy in updating frequencies or other mechanism of tree adjustment may provide significantly higher contribution into compression ratio. On that reason, in adaptive algorithms, the most important role plays the speed and convenience in recreation of the tree rather than its optimality, because optimality exists only for provided frequencies while actual frequencies in adaptive encoding are always different from presumed. Polar tree, in general case, is different from Huffman tree although may coincide in many cases, but it can be created or updated by very small number of operations, what makes it attractive in usage in different adaptive algorithms, where trees have to be updated frequently. In the table below the codes for all three trees are presented for the same example as considered in [[Shannon-Fano coding]].

{| class="wikitable"
!Symbol
!Frequency
!Huffman codes
!Shannon-Fano codes
!Polar codes
|- align="center"
|A
|15
|0
|00
|0
|- align="center"
|B
|7
|100
|01
|100
|- align="center"
|C
|6
|101
|10
|101
|- align="center"
|D
|6
|110
|110
|110
|- align="center"
|E
|5
|111
|111
|111
|}

In this particular case Polar codes are identical to Huffman codes, but in general case there may be some difference. Same is true for Shannon-Fano coding, they might be identical to Huffman as well.

The algorithm of constructing of Polar codes goes over code lengths generation as it is shown in the next table.

{| class="wikitable"
!Symbol
!Original frequency
!First run
!Second run
!Third run
!Code length
!Code
|- align="center"
|A
|15
|8
|16
|32
|1
|0
|- align="center"
|B
|7
|4
|8
|8
|3
|100
|- align="center"
|C
|6
|4
|8
|8
|3
|101
|- align="center"
|D
|6
|4
|8
|8
|3
|110
|- align="center"
|E
|5
|4
|8
|8
|3
|111
|}

The starting data for building of the tree must be sorted list of all frequencies. The sum of all frequencies 39 is rounded up to a next power 2 number, which is 64, and, all frequencies are rounded down to the next power 2 number. On the next step we move top to bottom and double every frequency, which can be doubled without exceeding the total of 64, which we call target total. The result 16,8,8,8,8 is shown in the fourth column. Now we keep repeating previous step until sum of all frequencies becomes equal to target total. As we can see we need to repeat this step only once and obtain final list 32,8,8,8,8. The difference in bit lengths between modified frequency and target total is the code length for each symbol in the tree.
Having code lengths we build actual codes by adding 1 and shifting to the left of each coding fragment to correspondent length. The last operation of building actual codes from the code lengths is known and used in building Huffman trees and also known as compact way of saving trees. So only generation of code lengths constitute novelty of algorithm. Operation of double of frequency is binary shift. When we add intermediate frequencies the numbers have only one positive bit and number of runs is rarely more than 10 even for trees built for 256 symbols. All that makes code lengths generation extremely fast and allows frequent updates of the tree in adaptive encoding, which overwhelmingly compensate slight non-optimality of Polar coding compared to Huffman.

== History ==
The algorithm is published in July 2010 and backed up by [http://ezcodesample.com/prefixer/prefixer_article.html DEMO program], which offers additional optimization by adaptive resorting of symbols on every step.

== Independent implementation ==
Although the method was recently introduced it was already beta tested in [http://code.google.com/p/lzham/ LZHAM algorithm].

== Additional optimization by adaptive sorting ==
The advantage of the algorithm is quick generation of code lengths. The trees, however, are replaced periodically after each relatively large fragment. To improve compression in [http://ezcodesample.com/prefixer/prefixer_article.html original DEMO program] the author suggests concept of floating leafs on the tree. This floating leafs concept is adaptive sorting on every step according to accumulated frequency. Presume in the middle of adaptation interval symbol B became more frequent than A. In this case they simply switch while tree stays the same and most frequent symbol encoded by shortest code already in the middle of adaptation interval. The same scenario is reproduced in decoding thus making decoding unmistakeably reversible. The additional advantage of this adaptive sorting or floating leafs is that at the point of recreation of the tree symbols are already sorted and time is not spent or sorting alphabet according to frequency.

== Limitations of the method ==
Polar tree is subject to the same limitations in data compression as other two binary prefix coding. It can not possibly compress anything to less than 1 bit per symbol. And it might be far from statistical limit established by [[entropy]] for the data that could be compressed to low entropy. In the same way as [[Huffman coding]] and [[Shannon-Fano coding]] application of Polar coding is justified to data with large alphabets, which entropy is at least over 4 bits/symbol. According to description of LZHAM Polar coding was applied to literals left after application of LZ algorithm. As it is known literals are not very well compressed and may represent good ground for application of either of binary coding technique.

== External links ==
*[http://ezcodesample.com/prefixer/prefixer_article.html A. Polar, Non-Huffman Binary Tree. July, 2010]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polar Tree

2010-08-25T04:02:21Z

C-processor: /* Polar Tree */

2010-08-21T06:36:14Z

C-processor:

User:C-processor/Polar Tree

2010-08-21T06:28:19Z

C-processor:

2010-08-21T03:51:21Z

C-processor:

Polar Tree is set of binary codes assigned to a symbol set in the process known in [[information theory]] as [[entropy encoding]]. The goal is to reduce the length taken by encoded fragment. Other binary trees created for the same purpose are [[Shannon-Fano coding]] and [[Huffman]].

User:C-processor/Polar Tree

2010-08-21T03:50:09Z

C-processor:

User:C-processor/Polar Tree

2010-08-21T03:46:53Z

C-processor: ←Created page with 'Polar Tree is set of binary codes assigned to a symbol set in the process known in information theory as entropy encoding. The goal is to reduce the length ...'