User talk:IceUnshattered/ArchivesSeptember 2015

Trained, experienced subject expert, likely to leave over this point
(1) Please search within wiki for "macromolecular assembly", and you will see it is referred to repeatedly without definition.

(2) Please understand that content experts often are not, and will not become, expert wiki editors. I am not, and will not. I simply do not have the time.

(3) If you believe that it is better to leave this content unavailable, because of the formatting issue, so be it. I will elevate this issue as broadly as I can, to as many as I can, to see what I consider to be an additional deep flaw in an organization already struggling vis-a-vis the quality of its scientific content.

(4) As the subject line implies, I will not continue this discussion. If this is the way the system functions, then it simply is dysfunctional beyond repair (as it pertains to my involvement), and I will retire from work on it. Cheers.

ProfD Meduban (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See my reply below. Yes, the system is flawed, but it shouldn't prevent you from contributing your expertise! Icy  // ♫ 22:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Macromolecular assembly
The lack of sections is not a reason to decline an article. Instead it should be accepted with wikify or Sections added to it. Aside from that do you see any reason to decline? I will look at it tonight, but I thought I'd talk to you first. Ryan Vesey Review me!  21:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, otherwise it seems good. I'm sorry to have offended anyone over this. I'll do this myself. Icy  // ♫ 22:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah. You've done it for me. Thank you. Icy  // ♫ 22:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually didn't, I was going to wait until tonight just because I wanted to see your comment and make sure I wasn't missing something. (Occasionally editors decline a submission and don't really give all of the reason in the decline)  In any case, the three most major reasons to decline an article are if it is unsourced, if it is copyvio, and if the subject is not notable.  Other cases apply; however, they usually apply in conjunction with another or in an unrelated manner.  For example, declining due to lack of context is usually done because the content doesn't establish notability, but you believe the person might be notable.  This might be something like Jo Schmuck owns a company.source  You realize that this person may be notable; however, you absolutely cannot tell by that one sentence.  The other biggie is the BLP violation one, but I'm sure you knew that.  Do you use the helper script?  My general guideline is that if it would pass AFD it should pass AFC; however, that guideline appears to be about to fail for me :(  In any case, thanks for your work!  I've not seen you around before, where are you active? Ryan Vesey  Review me!  03:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah. I'll definitely keep that in mind when I review articles. Regarding my Wikipedia activity, it's been sort of strange. I was active back around 2008/09ish and did some editing of book articles, meteorology, super minor stuff. For a while when I had time, I helped out with Milhist A-class reviews, making sure stuff made sense/was consistent, read well, etc. And then high school kicked in (it still is) and pretty much killed any active editing of mine. I started doing AfC extremely recently (literally, a couple days?) mostly due to meeting this guy and realizing I couldn't just look at a huge backlog and not do anything about it. I indeed do use the helper script. I definitely screwed up here, but hopefully that means it won't happen again. Icy  // ♫ 04:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well keep up your good work. The one decline was corrected.  (In any case, it should have been approved in June and it was reasonable for you to defer to the previous reviewer)  Since you are a female editor, I thought you might be interested in the Teahouse.  It's a new program with the aim of increasing new editor retention, specifically relating to female editor retention.  You can share your knowledge and ask questions about things you might be a bit rusty on.  In any case, it's great to have you back and I hope you stay!  It's totally cool if you can't edit during the school year too, I probably didn't make more than 100 total edits during my first year of college. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  04:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Credential and process "check"
What specific credentials does this reviewer have, to approve or disapprove an article with content such as this? And why is the decision being placed back into his hands of a reviewer who simply approved an earlier reviewer's erroneous format disapproval decision? I simply cannot fathom this process, and how wikipedia expects anyone with professional responsibilities in a subject area to set aside time for the back-and-forth, for what should have been a simple "filling" of a clear scientific hole in wiki's content. I am beyond exasperated. Prof D. Meduban (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello. I accept my judgment might not have been perfect (I'm a flawed human being too), see Ryan Vesey's comment above. Your article has been approved and moved to mainspace and I'm certain it will be very valuable to readers. I'm sorry that this process or the "back-and-forth" has caused you exasperation or pain, but please trust that I am speaking with perfect honesty when I say that I appreciate your contributions as a professional in the area. I will do my best to improve my actions particular in the context of Articles for Creation. Thank you, again. Icy  // ♫ 22:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do not badger our editors. Ice is new to the process and she is learning. Wikipedia is a website built on compromise, and we are all working together in order make the site better. I helped her review that article, and it does need work, but that does not mean that it is far from being perfect. Thanks for your submission, and good luck! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The comment above is not a badgering, which is a loaded word with the potential to divert the discussion. Rather, it is a sincere, direct question that should be elevated if it touches on areas of policy not the bailiwick of frontline editors.  Again, you have an article written by a prof that cannot take the time to learn the nuances of wiki formatting, but is willing to generate new important content if the process is not made too arduous.  Based on this last cycle: no one with my responsibilities will take the time to do writing if it takes this long and requires this much angst on all sides to make it work (and I am yet the "least of these" in the scientific echelons).  To return to the main point:  Perhaps a two-prong review is needed, one based on wiki format and other wiki-criteria, and the other based primarily on content.  The former would only result in delay in appearance if errors are singularly or cumulatively egregious, the latter could delay appearance in the case that an **expert** reviewer noted significant errors in fact or emphasis.  Bottom line, the credential and process questions posed were and are sincere questions. We don't learn, and things don't change, by beating around the bush.  Emotion creates opportunity for virtue insofar as it allows distillation, from any given haze, of the key elements necessary for process understanding and change.  Since I don't know your system, I ask again, please elevate, and keep me in the loop.  I would propose a 15 minute phone conference with someone in authority of the over-arching review process. But then I am old-fashioned, results oriented, and and very time-constrained.  Prof D  Meduban (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To be frank, there are no credentials. Wikipedia is a community of volunteers and in essence, nobody is required to review any of the articles submitted.  The process exists as a way to facilitate the contributions of IP editors after the Seigenthaler incident resulted in their loss of ability to create articles.  In addition, once you created an account, you lost the need to submit an article through the articles for creation process.  In the future, you can create by searching for the title of the new article in Wikipedia's search bar.  At the top of the search results will be a phrase that says You may create the page "ARTICLE NAME", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.  Click on that red link and you can create the article.  If you feel you can create the article in one draft, or create an acceptable article in one draft and improve upon it later, you can add all of the context in the edit window that shows up.  If you feel that you would like to create a draft prior to moving the article, you should notice the fifth bullet point which allows you to create the page at Special:Mypage/ARTICLE NAME.  Clicking that will allow you to create the article in your userspace.  Once you have finished the article, you can move the article by using the move button at the top of the page.  Read Help:Moving for more information. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  16:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ryan. This is useful information.  And no slight intended by my pressing this after you disappeared from chat.  Simply was confused by what occurred, and wanted the matter finished, so I could move on to other things.  Cheers.  Meduban (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The thing about AFC is that you are having people approve articles who basically are trusting that you aren't lying blatently to us (and this is a legitimate fear that we're doing this unknowingly). We have hundreds of articles that come in each day, and we have to equally approve hundreds each day in order to keep everything from imploding on us. A lot of our editors fit the definition of children. Yes, you are selling your articles to children (some of whom are more strict than I am), none of whom have any expertise in half the subjects that we're approving (but then again, this is Wikipedia, and no one person knows everything). I am not within that group, but I do believe that articles should be improved as much as possible (so, paragraphs), if possible. You do have valid concerns though in that the process does have issues, and we are trying to hash out all of these arguments here, as that really is the only place where things can be recorded and accomplished. I would suggest that you bring any issues that you have there, as I'm sure that others would like to hear from you as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the guidance. You are a very accomplished young man, an wiki is lucky to have your participation/devotion.  Things change by virtue of substance, relationship/network, and timing -- the right ideas coming together with the right people at the right time.  I have already messaged calliopejen, who I trust, and Daniel Mietchen, whose work I became aware of.  Perhaps it is impatience -- of a type you will feel when the myriads of your interests in people, activities, things narrow to a very few of each -- that makes me say, I have to find assurances of a path to contribute quality content without further major hitches, or otherwise have to "change horses in mid-ride".  Life is too short.  Cheers, and if any further "paths" for process change come to mind -- if Jimmy is your uncle -- let me know.  Prof D  Meduban (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

my article--kaisa miettinen
You had recently reviewed my submission and asked for references to be able to accept. I have done it now. Is this acceptable now?

A different reviewer was pasting the entire list of publications and I do not wish them to be here. I have provided a link to publications of Professor Kaisa Miettinen.

Thanks ksindhy Ksindhya (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC) (Ksindhya (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC))


 * Thanks so much! Personally, I think it was a good idea for you to link Professor Miettinen's publications rather than write them all. I think that the article is much improved and I think that it is acceptable. I'm going to ask User talk:Snowysusan for a brief second opinion though -- See this at the bottom of her talk page. She seems to be heavily interested in your article and I think it would be right to ask her opinion.


 * About that list of publications, you'll see that I mentioned to her that it would be great to include a section like "Selected publications" which would list a few (usually less than 10?) particularly outstanding, notable, or otherwise exceptional works important to others in her field. You could easily make this a sub-heading under the "Research Publications" section which you have added. Just a suggestion, a compromise of sorts! Good luck! I'm really glad to see the changes that you've made. Hopefully she gets back promptly. Icy  // ♫ 21:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Kaisa Miettinen
Good day. First let me apologize - I didn't know you were still working with Dr. Miettinen on the article and it wasn't my intention to interfere with an ongoing process. I also cleaned up some of the grammar, added some citations where they were missing, added section headers, and took out references to "me" or "my" and replaced them with "she" or "her." I don't think any of these changes are likely to be an issue, but you may both wish to have a look them and undo them if you think the original was better. With respect to the publications, it's my view that the reader should be able to readily access the information about the subject (insofar as possible) within Wikipedia itself rather than have to hit the reference links and go to external sources to find out why the subject is notable and what they have published/done. However, if she doesn't wish any of her publications to be noted within her page that's okay with me. I agree that the article is ready to be moved to the main space now. Cheers, Susan Snowysusan 21:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed most of the cleanup that you did and think that it's good. Thanks for your opinion (and very, very quick response)! Icy  // ♫ 21:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ...aaaand ✅ :) Icy  // ♫ 21:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

AfC
If you read the articles reviewed by Nathan and Excirial you would have seen that the latter was a completely different article from the first. And, if you read the article reviewed by Excirial and compared it to the one you reviewed, you would have seen that I addressed all of the issues he mentioned. Namely, the tone of the talk was changed to a formal tone, all of the peacock phrases were removed, and all of the citations were either changed or verified. I have been meticulous with citations and secondary references and I had a discussion with a few members of Wikipedia regarding the fact that many of the citable articles only existed as copies on websites and no longer existed on the original journal or newspaper sites and therefore were not useful. I have been very thorough with Excirial and other Wikipedia staff suggestions and the fact that you simply cut and paste the identical comments as his prior to my changes implies that you did not properly review the article, the citations, and the changes I made to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planktonium (talk • contribs) 18:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for your messages. It's true that you made major improvements and I recognise that and thank you for it, but more importantly than the template were the comments I added below, which I thought more applicable to your article. I was very much on the fence about whether to decline or accept your article. The comments I added were "Hey. You provide a great overview of de Ruiter's "awakening" and work, but not really enough objective analysis of what impact he's had on the philosophical community for this to really be an encyclopedic article." Since it's true that your article underwent major improvements and I think it's valid that you're contesting my judgment, I'll ask another review -- probably Excirial, since he was the previous reviewer, for a second opinion. Cheers, Icy  // ♫ 12:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John de Ruiter
Thank you for your comments and support. I really appreciate your feedback as I do want to produce a quality article and not simply get something posted that isn't good quality. You mentioned adding an objective analysis of what impact John has had on the philosophical community so I would like to ask you about the following sentences which are from secondary sources. Although they may seem subjective, they do come from heavy weights in the field and their exclusion would be undermining the impact John has had on them and on communities they are involved in. Alternatively, I have also found negative comments so I could include those as well to balance the viewpoints. I will continue looking for more objective commentary and send them ahead, but the problem I have found is that many secondary sources now only exist as copies on websites and not in the original source website or archives.

Doctor Carl Mindell, former Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at New York’s Albany Medical College, refers to de Ruiter as “the most powerful spiritual teacher I’ve ever seen — and I’ve seen a goodly number of them.(36)(37) John’s teaching is single-mindedly from the absolute, and as such, carries an extraordinary powerfulness and draw.”(38) American contemporary spiritual teacher and author, Ram Dass (Richard Albert), called de Ruiter “the real thing”.(41) Known as an accessible teacher, De Ruiter has been called a modern day Socrates seeking out the ultimate knowledge of the deepest self.(42)(43) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planktonium (talk • contribs) 00:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments, I've added a few of my own on your talk page. Also, remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (like this: ~) . Cheers, Icy  // ♫ 02:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting
You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 09:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

New England Wikipedia Day @ MIT: Saturday Jan 18
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

You're invited!
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Precious
  fix of poorly written articles

Thank you, gnomish user banging your head against your "keyboard when encountering poorly written articles", for fixing them, for working on quality articles such as Alaska-class cruiser in collaboration, for a so far last edit summary "amusing, but I don't really think that's necessary...", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 925th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

:(
Emu mentioned that it's been a while since we've seen you on IRC. Look how sad he is! :( Legoktm (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Awww no!!! Basically college has taken over my life and I've been having enough trouble writing papers and doing problem sets and remembering to sleep, eat, and breathe as it is, let alone go on IRC. I'll try and reappear sometime (and start editing again... derp) And in the meantime, hugs to all of you!!!!! Icy  // ♫ 21:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * :v —Emufarmers(T/C) 19:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)