User talk:ElijahBosley/Archive 2

 Welcome. Leave me a message by adding a new section.

Barnstars
This one I would like to make emblematic of my general approach to Wikiediting:

Virginia Quarterly
Hey. Were you these edits? If you were, you should know that they were done when you were logged out, so it looks like an IP made them. Going forward, please make sure that you stay logged in so no one accuses you of sock puppeeting.—  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up--yes I did do them. I'd earlier suggested the footnote on the talk page as Elijah Bosley.  But between then and when I actually did the  edit Wikipedia had a strange slow-down, like  denial of service attack.  I closed the window in my browser, waited ten minutes, then went back and added the footnote.  Closing the window must have logged me out. I don't sock puppet, or meat puppet, and I am slowly learning how to do footnote format. In this case I should have used a temporary reflist in the edit window to avoid having to reload the page three times to see how the Wikiparser was rendering the footnote.ElijahBosley(talk) 12:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Template validity experiment
Having created a personal user award, I am conferring it upon myself to test whether the template functions as intended:

Usage
To use this template, add to the talk page of the user to whom you wish to award it.

Thanks :D
Thanks :D for the Template:Pack of Wolves Award  Wolfnix has given you a Wolf! Wolves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Wolves must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion and protecter forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a wolf, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of wolves by adding {{subst:Wolf}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Footnoting
Alas, no; I type them by hand. I sometimes refresh my memory about the fields by going to Template:Cite web (or the appropriate cite template, Cite book, Cite news, Cite journal), but I mainly just type them out. Sorry! Magidin (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The link to the Template:Cite is something I did not know about--I'll go check it out. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  20:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Cheers!
(chug, chug, chug...) Thanks! It works great! Should we make the whole text customizable, though? What do you think?

Yeah, and one more thing...


 * Ha! Thanks. *glug* Not sure about removing the whole text, as that much blank space would confuse newbies.  But you could delete everything after "here's a beer for. . . " and get a similar effect. You can edit the template as you would any other webpage, so have at it. *glug*  Best wishes. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  22:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Care to do an interview?
Do you think what you’ve written is a neutral point of view? You claim to uphold the constitution of Wikipedia and yet you’re breaking its first and absolute law. You bully and “undo” anyone who edits what you’ve written. Be accountable for what you’ve written. Everyone involved agrees in print that Kevin Morrissey killed himself. And ALL involved have backed down in print from the bullying charge, not to mention the fact that the article from Slate debunks it as well as the newest Cville article. What’s your relationship to this case? You seem very determined to accuse the editor of some pretty terrible things. Why don’t you give us your real name? Let’s hold you accountable in the same way you seem determined to hold Genoways. Keep up the good work you doer of good wiki deeds.


 * Huh? 1) Get a grip. I haven't "undone" anything substantive in nearly a month. You must be angry at some other editor.  2)  Get an account, so you can sign your posts.  3) Get some practice editing non-controversial topics, like the life cycle of daffodils, or the origins of the name Keswick: anything you aren't personally connected to. Once you have learned neutrality from editing something you don't really care about, then and only then can you turn your attention to something you do care about, deeply, personally.  Only then can you hope for some restraining sense of objectivity.  It grows by experience.  Think of yourself as a judge looking down on a topic, a neutral judge who only cares whether the statements are supported by reliable sources.  A judge has no point of view; a judge as was once memorably said on an episode of Law and Order, "is not supposed to care who wins."  Best wishes. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  13:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Islands of Maine
Here is the top category, Category:Islands of Maine. I linked Sears Island there, as well as in Waldo County. I agree that the islands should be listed both ways, and so I am adding the main category to each article, so that there is an overall list and by county. Jllm06 (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I started List of islands of Maine. Help completing the list would be appreciated.--TM 15:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I found belatedly a List of islands of the Northeast United States which includes a List of islands of Maine --but only 34 of the islands. I could write theMaine Island Trail organization for their more comprehensive list of smaller and uninhabited islands, but I fear they may ask me to pay the $45 membership fee. I'll see if there is another source. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  16:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of European American and White American on U.S. Supreme Court pages
Greetings! In light of your previous work on these articles, please weigh in on the discussion at Talk:Supreme Court of the United States. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Lawfare
Thanks for the minor corrections - appreciate it. Soosim (talk) 06:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

adding List of islands of Maine to see also
I corrected the articles, but for future reference I wanted to point out WP:LAYOUT: The "See also" section should come before the notes and references, and should not include links outside the English Wikipedia. These links belong in the "External links" section, which should come last. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 07:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  12:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

thanks
Thanks, for you kind comments at my Arbcom talkpage and for your trust. Off2riorob (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think my remarks just, and accurate; if they come across as kind that is purely accidental. Good luck in the election. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  14:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Tis the season


 Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.

George Bush Edits
Hi when I originally posted the tidbit about Bush canceling in Switzerland, the reference I used explicitly stated that the event organizers could control the crowds and that Bush was not worried about legal entanglements. However the implication was they could not keep individuals from throwing shoes and therefore Bush canceled so as not to be embarrassed. You have changed the entire meaning into Bush is not going because he was afraid of being prosecuted. This was not his concern from the reference that I used. I think that what you have done is promote a certain point of view not evident in the original reference. I am not going to change it back but I did want to have you think about what you have done.Glennconti (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your post. Note that my version added two other references the previous version lacked. One newspaper asserts he cancelled to avoid violent demonstrations, the other that he cancelled for fear of arrest. So it is appropriate to say "reports differ." Further discussion should occur on that talk page.  Best wishes,  ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  19:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk pg msg
hey dude. i just realized. i forgot to thnk u 4 the awsome msg u .left on my talk page altho u took the time to create. message and i apprecyate ur concurn fer me having a user id. and weather. i git a barnstar im afrayd i had 2 delete it becuz it was assthetically unpleezing. You cunt imagine all tha thingz ive been buzy wit lately so. i havent bin able 2 join da wiky communitie wit user name. thx again brotha elijah

Moseby's Cave
In the 1950's I read a book that I recall was written by a member of the 43rd Vir.. His description of the cave was that it was entered from a a stream so that tracks did not lead to it & the entrance was surrounded by heavy brush. Also that there was another entrance above that sloped down so that horses could go down it. Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.102.31.151 (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's very interesting--I am unaware of the book but will try to find a copy of it. The only account I found was in a 1940's book, traced back to an 1860's newspaper article, based on the recollection of a Federal surgeon's assistant who claimed the cave was accidently discovered when a horse fell through a trap door. But neither the original article nor any other account has turned up. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  14:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited 43rd Battalion Virginia Cavalry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Partisan(check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I checked. The link is proper, the bot is wrong. So I am opting out from this bot, using the bots deny code.   ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  17:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Lawfare
Hey ElijahBosley,

Quick question. I'm pretty new at Wikipedia editing but was trying to add a contribution to the page about the definition of the word Lawfare. The Lawfare Blog popularized a less-negative connotation of the word. How would be best to add in this contribution (I think its important to give a full picture of the word's definition) because I now know that I can't cite to the blog (even though its written by scholars), and no op-ed/newspaper article explicitly discusses this point. Any ideas? - Sleutert21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleutert21 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Sleuter21. I think Mr. Goldsmith has written scholarly articles in law reviews, some of which might address this point, listedhere. To read those you'd need to go to a nearby law school and ask the reference librarian to show you how to find law review articles, which show up on Westlaw (a pay-for-view service for lawyers) but not free in standard search engines. I did read Goldsmith's book on the Bush presidency and I can say that you won't find anything positive about Lawfare in that: in the book he is more concerned with the negative effects of having folks like Rumsfeld face potential international legal repercussions. Personally (whatever my opinion of Rumsfeld's actions) I agree with Mr. Goldsmith on this simply as a matter of legal logic. There are up to 196 countries in the world depending on how you count them; could Mr Rumsfeld be tried for the same acts, acquitted over and over in 195 counties--and yet convicted in the 196th? So I am interested to hear what positive things Mr. Goldsmith has to say about Lawfare, and kudos for your diligence.  ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  22:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

December 2012
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:OR, WP:VERIFY, WP:WEIGHT, WP:BURDEN, WP:AGF are all policies you've violated. Should I passively aggressively post a warning template for each one? You sicken me. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Directed my energies over here: WP:ANI. You might wanna respond. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's amazing how quick you were to file your own ANI post, yet the article talk page is still waiting on your response. Huh. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The matter has been resolved here with my acceptance of "a good trouting" for having lost my temper. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  15:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Timber framing
Hi ElijahBosley. I may well review this nomination (perhaps) next week if no one gets there first. But, I will be "brutally" honest, in view of your comments atWP:GAN in support of it.

If I were reviewing it today (which I'm not), I'd fail it and someone else may well fail it.

Its clearly non-compliant with WP:WIAGA. For instance, the lead does not comply with WP:Lead, and that was mentioned at WP:FAC back in 2007 (seehere). There are uncited statements and completely uncited sections, there are flags dating back to March 2011 and April 2012,  flags going back to June 2011, raw web citations. Its clearly not GA-level in its present state.Pyrotec (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your remarks, Pyrotec. I made no comments at WP:GAN other than a short note in the nomination itself, perhaps that is what you mean?  My note pointed out that while it may not qualify as a featured article (it did flunk featured article criteria last time as your note reminds us) it seems like a good one.  And I would like to say here (since the nominator is precluded from saying so there)  it seems good for being well written, interesting, well illustrated, and informative.  In answer to concerns about its previously flunking featured article criteria: "A good article is a satisfactory article that has met the good article criteria but may not have met the criteria for featured articles.[1] The good article criteria measure decent articles; they are not as demanding as the featured article criteria, which determine our best articles." This from Good article criteria.    I have no experience in these matters.  But I do worry sometimes that Wikipedia is getting a little over-refined, rule-bound, exalting form over substance.  There should be a way for an editor to say "pretty good job" on an article akin to a barnstar, and with as little fuss.  I was hoping a good article nomination was that way, and I imagine that is what "good article' started out to be.  If you feel I should withdraw the nomination I will of course do so, since my objective of a simple pat on the back to its many contributers would be defeated indeed reversed, if somebody failed it. What do you think? Can I withdraw it at this point?  Should I?  ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  22:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. I have been adding to Timber framing and I have more information to add. I am a relatively new editor and still learning the basics, but I thought the lead needed more work. If this article does not pass the review can it be nominated again in a month or two? Jim Derby (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Jim in view of your comment and the preceeding one I will go ahead and withdraw the nomination (to avoid the risk of failure, which seems sad and not how Wikipedia ought to work, but still). I will then look back again in a couple months. And may I take this opportunity to say what I intended the nomination to say: an interesting, informative article, and your efforts to improve it are appreciated. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  23:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow! Thanks for the hex sign! Wikipedia is an interesting, complex place. It's fun to explore, learn and contribute. Jim Derby (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To ElijahBosley: Just to clarify, yes I was referring to the short note of "endorsement" in the nomination list. I see that you read the introduction toGood article criteria, but perhaps you did not proceed a little further down to Good article criteria and Good article criteria? My comment was just intended to advise you that the article was so obviously non-compliant to me that it appeared that it was not going to be receive GA-status without a lot of work; but it was more likely to be "quickfailed" or "failed" than put "On Hold" to allow time for it to be brought up to standard. I avoided making any suggestion that you should remove the article from nomination list. The article might have been "quickfailed" (see Good article criteria) in which case there would be no benefit, or it might have been reviewed and a list of "defects produced - I'd say its possibly non-compliant with WP:WIAGA clauses 1(b), 2(a), 2(b) and perhaps 3(a), if that is of help. You might find the page Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment useful. My own view is that in terms of quality the article is somewhere between Start and C-class, but it might make C-class. Its certainly not B-class, nor it is anywhere near GA-class. It might also be useful to look at some GA articles, "vaguely related" to this topic, such as Port of Liverpool Building, Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral, Kenilworth Castle, National Gallery or Architecture of Scotland. All of these are GAs and that is the standard to be expected (I have to admit a certain bias here as I reviewed two of these and awarded them GA-status). Yes you can award barnstars to editors for "pretty good job" on an article, but a GAN nomination is not a barnstar. I saw from the article's history (here) that you did not seem to have done any recent editing on the article. In a situation like that, nominating an article for GA (and or FA) when perhaps the article is "not quite ready" can sometimes involve a lot of work for one or more editors to bring it up to standard, or its marked as a "failure". Its also sometimes regarded as a "drive by nomination". On the other-hand, if an article is at or about GA-level, then the nomination can come away with a GA.
 * To Jim, I'd say good luck with the article, but if you are going to nominate it again in a few months then the article needs to be more like the five articles that I've listed above. Since Timber framing is a bit of an overview and its "long", the Architecture of Scotland article is probably a good model to emulate. Pyrotec (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Pyrotec thank you for your detailed and informative response, and please accept my praise and congratulations for your hard work in reviewing articles. You are right that I've not done any recent editing on that article--I've done no editing on it at all. Zero. My understanding (wrong again perhaps?) is that an editor working on the article is disqualified from nominating it. In any event, there are an awful lot of rules and regulations standing in the way of a simple pat on the back for a good article, which is what I intended. Not a great article, not perfect, but pretty good. You are familiar with the ruiles as they have developed and multiplied and doubtless I should learn them.  But first I will turn my attention to creating a simple way to tell a bunch of article editors "pretty well done" (flaws notwithstanding). And having invented another simple pat on the back, no doubt over time policies and procedures and expectations will settle on it like fine dust, each well intentioned, each with a purpose to serve, and gradually the dust will encrust it and harden into a set of arcane rules and regulations.  And somebody else will then have to invent a simple way to say well done.  It may seem peevish of me but behind this is a serious--in fact very serious, I might suggest potentially deadly serious point. Wikipedia editors are volunteers.  We work for the satisfaction of working, and doing our best. Take away a simple pat on the back, and what are we left with? The satisfaction of obeying rules and fulfilling policies? The recent article Nobody Wants to Edit Wikipedia Any More. says: "Wikipedia has lost some 30 percent of its English-language editors since 2006, as a result of off-putting automated rejections, restrictive new rules, and controlling older editors." Like I said, an accretion of rules is not merely a danger, it may well prove to be a deadly danger to Wikipedia.  Jimbo Wales' Pillar Number Five says when the rules get in the way, ignore them.  I think he anticipated rules could suffocate the enterprise he created.  With best wishes, and the devout hope that I am (again) wrong-   ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  00:39,


 * PS--I always seem to want the last word even when I had the next-to-last. Here is the earliest version of "Good Article" I could find. How simple.  How easy. Originally it really was just a pat on the back. Now, with the accumulated rules and regulations and the potential humiliation of failure to meet them (which was certainly not in the original), this seems more like a potential kick in the backside.  ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  01:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to have to disagree again on a few points, but it is very interesting to hear your perspective on these topics. Absolutely anyone, including those who have edited an article, and including "IP users", can nominate an article at WP:GAN. The rule is that editors who have significantly contributed to an article can't review it at GAN: that in a way is just common sense, because there is a potential conflict of interest. My comment about you not having edited that article was not made in respect of your "right to nominate it", but as a possible measure of "commitment to the article" which I'll return to later on. Perhaps you are not aware that the standards for both FA and GA were tightened up in mid-2007; and, it was considered that many of the early articles awarded GA status were substandard in respect of the 2007 rules, mostly on referencing? Wikipeidia is often criticised in the media for the poor standards of its articles and so quality standards are necessary. A project called WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps was set up to re-review all the articles awarded GA-status prior to August 2007. It took three years to complete. I came into it during near the end, so I only re-reviewed 46 articles, but one editor did over 600 and several other editors did 200 to 300 reviews each (see WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps/Running total). It will also show how many were delisted. I delisted about 10 to 15 % of what I reviewed, but other reviewers' delistings were as high as 25 to 50%. A fake article created about June/July 2007 was awarded GA status back in October 2007, so it was not re-reviewed at GA Sweeps, and it was submitted to FAC in 2007 but did not make FA. Some five years later it was discovered to be a fake and the article deleted. That "problem" was picked up by PC World, Yahoo and others in 2012 (see Wikipedia talk:Good articles) and Wikipedia was again heavily criticised for the quality of its articles. The GA project is still trying to resolve problems of that nature. I'm also a volunteer and I've reviewed over 500 GANs. Its hard work (but it gives me satisfaction) and I get very few barnstars, they are all listed on my userpage - there's about ten or twelve, which is not a lot for four year's work. You are perfectly able to issue barnstars to editors (see Category:Wikipedia award master templates), but the days of giving GAs to articles that "you like" are over. There are published standards are nominations have to be reviewed against the standards. Editors are able to nominate their own articles, but they need to have a realistic idea of the standard and not nominate articles that clearly not going to make the grade. Again, the decision at the end of a GAN review is not simply/solely a black and white "pass" or "fail". An article that is consider both "close to being a GA" and capable of being brought up to standard in say a week or so, can be put "On Hold" to allow time for corrective actions to be done. However, if the nomination is made by someone who has not edited the article, or is not a member of a related wikiproject (note that article has been be reviewed by any wikiproject nor its is "claimed to be of interest to any") the reviewer may consider that the nominator does not have a long term interest in the article and/or the resources to correct "problems" found in the review, so may be less willing to place the article "on hold". Just to give a few examples of the use of "on Hold" of nominations made by editors involved with articles. This review Talk:Lost (TV series)/GA3 I put on hold on 23 December 2012, but I closed it on 9th January 2013 because little or no work had been done, similarlyTalk:Neurotoxin/GA1, and I put Talk:Allahabad/GA1 on hold on 28 December 2012 and little has been done, so that may also "fail". Many articles are brought up to standard, but these are three of the last four articles that I've reviewed, and in these three cases nothing much happened in the way of "corrective actions". Pyrotec (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * PS. Its also worth pointing out, and in cases whether an reviewer awards GA-status to an article and copyright violations are found, its usually the reviewer who gets a kicking (to use your words) for not adequately checking the article. Pyrotec (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This time I am ceding the last word; instead my response is here. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  14:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

John Yoo and Torture Memo
Hi ElijahBosley- Thanks for the barnstar for my work on these articles. I had been doing a lot of work on 19th c. topics, but have moved into more recent history - learning again and thinking about what went on.Parkwells (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi again. Can you give me some perspective on these articles? Why are there so many cites for the same thing? For instance, four or five cites in John Yoo for one sentence saying that he appeared at 2008 Congressional hearings covering three topics. It seems like overkill and it is very hard to wade through in editing. The sources don't disagree with each other. The same thing occurs on many of these articles constructed from current journalism. They are not citing opposing opinions in controversy or interpretation. It's as if editors think if ten cites are there, the content is more authoritative, but it's not. Or each person wants to add his own source?Parkwells (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Parkwells, and thanks for you courage and willingness to dance though a minefield. You are looking at the detritus of ideological edit wars. Somebody writes a "hot button issue" sentence citing an article in support. His opponent rewrites, with a different cite.  The first guy rewrites again fortifying with three cites.  Pretty soon that ugly, scarred, worked-over sentence has multiple cites, often inapposite. But nobody can touch it for fear of sparking another war.  These ideologically sensitive pages get junked up, really they ought to be rewritten from scratch.  But with so many ideologue editors, whose watchlists all light up at once, that risks World Edit War Three.  So my view is: go one sentence at a time. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  16:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)