User talk:SparsityProblem/Archive 1

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

Welcome!

Hello, SparsityProblem, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Alai 22:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

A request for help with my research

Dear SparsityProblem

My name is Jim Sutton and I'm undertaking research in the School of Library, Archive, and Information Studies, UCL.

My research involves studying wiki usage, the reasons why individuals use wikis and the benefits/disadvantages of using wikis to manage knowledge.

I noticed a contribution of yours to the article on wikis and I was wondering if you would agree to my analysing your contributions to Wikipedia. This will basically involve calculating how many times you've contributed to Wikipedia within the time period of a week.

I was also wondering what your reasons are for using/contributing to Wikipedia. I'd be extremely grateful for any feedback you can provide.

If you agree to my analysing your contributions and can provide any feedback as to why you contribute to Wikipedia I’d be very grateful. My email address is james.sutton (at) ucl.ac.uk and can be emailed at this address if you agree and have any feedback or questions.

I also have a survey online which I'm using as part of my research at:

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/stqa7937/survey/

My Wikipedia username is Sutton4019 and my research is being carried out jointly with Melissa Terras at UCL. Her email address is m.terras (at) ucl.ac.uk .

If you have any questions please let me know and thank you for your time. Thanks! --Sutton4019 09:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Interracial marriage in NY

Please don't add that silly statement back to Marilyn Hacker again. The article you reference doesn't have anything to do with New York's laws, just look up the SupremeCourt case it mentions. A bunch of jazz musicians, sports figures, writers, etc, etc, etc, married spouses of other races in NYC in the 1950s. VivianDarkbloom 22:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Women computer scientists

Hi SparsityProblem, I have suggested at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 28#Category:Women_computer_scientists that you might like to withdraw your nomination to delete Category:Women computer scientists, because you appears to have been unaware of the relevant guideline WP:CATGRS, which I believe fully supports the existence of the category. Woukd you like to check that guideline and consider withdrawing the nomination? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 10:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Erdos numbers

We don't seem to be having much success in obtaining any evidence to support the case for retention, do we? So I have offered a reward. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

reverting my edits

Hi, i see you reverted all my edits on page on a 16 year old girl in Iran. I have just watched the BBC documentary on youtube and read through some links (even on this page), and corrected this article. Which was NPOV propaganda to the utmost, skewing facts etc - please do not revert my attempt to give this page a more neutral appearance. The rape allegations for instance are POV rant. The girl was having an affair wich lasted 3 years. Look at the BBC documentary; btw I come from the West and do not have any affinity for Iran or their moral police, but the way this article was is outrageous propaganda. NPOV is official policy, and so please try to check the facts before reverting. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rimerimea (talk • contribs) 00:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

sources

all the claims I made are sourced in BBC documentary and the articles already listed. It is not true that she did not have legal representative - BBC documentary speaks of one, who left in the middle of proceedings. It is not true that she had ID card, or that she could be easily indentified as 16. Indeed, lot of articles listed and the documentary make much of the fact that no fuss was made about her age, even speculating that it was she who reported her age to be 22, while it was 16. The age was a key issue here.

As for the spelling or language errors, you are free to correct them. Certainly no problem there, it is indeed a common thing; it is the POV issue and massive misrepresentations that I find problematic here, as well as pushing some POV. The article needs to be balanced and sane, and it was far from objective one.

sorry, but a BBC documentary is just as reliable source as a BBC article on internet; it is indeed a very curious argument you are making. The documentary is now on youtube and I just have watched it. Providing in line citations is fine, but there are so many claims that were not cited in this way. I will add them for some of the things you keep removing. On the other hand, claims about ID etc are just plain wrong and misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rimerimea (talk • contribs) 00:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I am adding the sources that you requested. Most of it is BBC documentary (available in 6 parts on youtube at the moment). As for what you say about CITE policy, I found it simply not to be true. There is no mention whatsoever that documentary is not an acceptable source. In fact, I am pretty sure a BBC documentary complies with wikipedia definition of reliable source, albeit BBC has serious POV issues. But there is no distinction between documentary or a book for the purpose of sourcing - medium does not play such a role. I have not found any evidence of what you claim in the policy you refered me to. Rimerimea —Preceding comment was added at 01:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

the source im citing is not youtube, but a bbc documentary. for convenience, a link was put to youtube available part of the documentary relevant to each of the quotes you wanted. you could at least appreciate this effort; as for what you say, that the youtube clip can be manipulated, that is irrelevant as the documentary is quoted and anyone can point the discrepancy if indeed there is any reason to doubt it existed. if you do have issues, IN GOOD FAITH, with the links provided, then please let me know. I seriously doubt you do. Indeed, it is theoretically possible that someone takes book from the library which has been manipulated and makes errorneus quotation, but the point is, providing the source, which is not THAT copy, but the book itself, than anyone can check the claims. So, in this case, if you are honest, take a look at what is available, and if you want, put one single link to BBC documentary instead of these youtube links (probably a copyviolation anyway) I provided. But all claims I made I have documented, and you can check them yourself, which is the purpose of sourcing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rimerimea (talk • contribs) 01:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"a number of math undergrads"

You know, Wikipedian's personal expertise is certainly interesting and worth noting, but it's not how we decide disputes (especially in what is clearly a matter of opinion). But to take what is clearly a pot-shot at me (and possibly others, but it came up explicitly in the previous discussion, and was clearly intended for me) by asserting that my opinion is to be discredited because I'm not quite as renowned (as far as you know) as R.e.b. is ludicrous and insulting. I'm a published mathematician and being between undergrad and grad school should lead you to draw no conclusions about my ability to contribute to this dispute. I can't fathom how you could use the fact that I don't yet have a PhD as a reason to dismiss or discredit me, and I find it insulting that you went out of your way to expound this point in the middle of a dispute that has plenty of on-topic points going on that you could have commented on instead. --Cheeser1 22:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats. Since you participated in the deletion discussion for these categories, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - auburnpilot talk 17:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)