User talk:LeadSongDog/Archives/2009/February

Battle of Passchendaele
G'Day, regarding the message you left for me about the link to VC recipients for the Battle of Passchendaele, there are similar links for the Battle of Somme (as well as others). My (future) plans are to add the list of other major awards to the individual battles that make up the Battle of Passchendale - including from any other nationality (such as the links to Canadian and Australian VC's). If this is does not address your concerns, can you please offer suggestions as to how I can address this? Thanks!MWadwell (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The concern is that countering systemic bias for this sort of content is particularly difficult. We should be matching awards by all combattants in the battle. Unfortunately the coverage of the Pour le Merite, the Légion d'honneur  etc is spotty at best. We have nothing to organize Central Powers awards by battle.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)
The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Accidents
I have just reverted you reversion of my deletion from the holding zone. Just to note I created the article added it to the main article and removed it from the holding zone! Any chance of looking at BA CityFlyer Flight 8456 the creator keeps adding to to the List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft but it doesnt appear to meet the inclusion criteria. I have removed it twice so would appreciate another opinion. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So sorry! My brain obviously wasn't fully engaged-I thought you'd deleted from the main list, not the Holding zone. Please forgive the snide edit comment. Re 8456, my usual tendency is "wait and see what the investigation shows", but in this case, there's little chance of an ongoing impact.  Snowball.LeadSongDog (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks no problem. MilborneOne (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Russian article
The reason why it is badly reason is not relevant, only the fact that it is. To click on an external link, recommended by Wikipedia, and find something like that is just not good enough. Richard75 (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

US Airways Flight 1549
You posted a commentary on US Airways Flight 1549 in the article itself (The 'surely we aren't treating People as a reliable source' bit). This discussion would belong in the Talk page, not the article itself. I've fixed it, and please be more careful in the future. Thanks! - C HAIRBOY (☎) 15:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why it was in a hidden comment. Restored.LeadSongDog (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. Since when do we have discussions about pages in hidden comments instead of the Talk page? - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 15:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't. But we do identify why specific places in the text need work. The detail goes to the talk page.LeadSongDog (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternative to notability
Hello! I am working on an objective alternate to notability in my userspace. Please read User:A Nobody/Inclusion guidelines and offer any suggestions on its talk page, which I will consider for revision purposes. If you do not do so, no worries, but if you wish to help, it is appreciated. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

WWI Rewrite
Hello LeadSongDog. Of all of the major contributors to World War I, you're the only one who has replied in any great detail on my page with regards to the gradual rewrite. I'm planning on rolling out the new lead on Friday, provided there are no objections. Could you take a looksie at the draft and see if there are any glaring issues that need to be fixed? Thanks in advance. Cam (Chat) 23:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Made a minor tweak, but it looks pretty good to me. I haven't compared it to the current article.LeadSongDog (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent design cites
LeadSongDog, thank you so much for cleaning up the citation formatting ! IMO, it really helps the internal organization of text and citations a whole lot. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a start. There are still a load of duplicated refs to be consolidated, probably using  style notation. LeadSongDog (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. A number of them use this format. I would recommend to be very cautious about consolidating refs with material in different locations within the same source, of which there are many. The most conspicuous examples of this refs from Kitzmiller v. Dover though there are several others too. And yes, there are also a few that could be combined. One of the Nick Matzke articles comes to my mind at the moment. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC) ... I just checked the Matzke refs, and the one I was thinking of is already combined. Anyway, there was discussion some time ago in which it was clear that we shouldn't be combining refs where different page #s were involved for different passages in the article. Again though, nice work on the formatting. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Photos
Thanks for answering on my talk page. I replied on the user's talk page as well, so hopefully the issue is cleared up. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D  14:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * More than welcome. I was curious about the question of credits on image captions anyhow, this was my excuse to go check out the guideline. Not that I think it's perfect, but I suspect it's a hotbutton better left unpushed.LeadSongDog (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Flickr
No, I am not asserting that all Flickr images are cc-by-2.0, but these images are. Look at the "Additional Information" section at the images, this one for example. It says "Some rights reserved", and if you click on it you are directed towards the cc-by-2.0 license. That is how Flickr works. The Flickr-to-commons tool checks whether the license under which an image is placed at Flickr is compatible with Wikipedia, so why not trust that tool and leave all the speculation about copyright violations behind? Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay! I agree it is all a bit confusing. No hard feelings. Cheers! Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

G20
Hi, Sorry, but I don't understand why you are deleting any information about protests at a G20 meeting. If you are being balanced, then you should not only link to the official London website, but also, major counter-summit events. It is not okay to link to G20 propaganda (their pamphlet, their website), and eliminate balancing information? Surely this balance just adds to the richness of the article, and doesn't take away from it? Sincerely, -- fellow confused physicist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnieo (talk • contribs) 11:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (Moved to the bottom to correct wp:Talk) Several reasons, which I identified in the wp:Talk.


 * 1) Advocacy, advertising or promotion of a viewpoint has no place in WP articles. It is not your social-networking site
 * 2) They are off-topic. The article is about the economies and the institution, not the meetings. If you want to create a balanced history article following the G-20 London summit, it would be on-topic there.
 * 3) WP is not news, there are lots of other places for that.
 * 4) WP is not a crystal ball: it doesn't predict the future.
 * I'd suggest that you appear to be pursuing just this topic. Try editing some articles where you don`t particularly care about the topic instead. Engage in their talk page discussions and learn what is and isn`t acceptable here. Creating this encyclopedia is fun. Arguing over things like this is not.LeadSongDog (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi I've edited loads of other topics, but usually don't bother using a userid, so I hope you consider the changes on merit. I've made a suggestion on the g20 talk page. --Jonnieo (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Slaughtering electrons????
ROFLMAO. I expect a citation with full analysis explaining the theory of electron slaughtering. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 17:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I wonder who could be constructively occupied writing that?LeadSongDog (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I've run across two or three tendentious editors in the field of woo who apparently have a lot of time on their hands to argue the same point over and over and over and over...... Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 19:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

tweaks at Natural units.
Can you tell us why those tweaks make the article more clear or consistent? I don't see why at all. If a new spectator comes to that page, I don't see what rhyme or reason they would take away. 64.223.113.109 (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would we say 1/x=1 when we can say x=1? The simplest expression is usually regarded as the most elegant. For reference the edits I made were these.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought it was about communicating directly what is to be communicated. I wish it was $$\epsilon_0\,$$ that was set to one, but what they did is normalize the Coulomb force constant which is $$1/(4\pi\epsilon_0)\,$$.  Like in cgs.  The consequence of the choice of what to normalize is that it's like a water balloon where you squeeze on some parts and it has to pop out somewhere else.  So when you set 3 out of 4 of the factors making up the fine-structure constant to 1 (those four factors are $$c, \hbar, {4\pi\epsilon_0}, e$$), then the remaining factor has to take on some function (usually the reciprocal) of $$\alpha$$.  E.g. in Stoney units $$c, {4\pi\epsilon_0}, e$$) all go to one, by definition, so the consequence is that Planck's constant doesn't get to be set to unity, it has to be $$\hbar=1/\alpha$$) if you're using Stoney units.  It's more obfuscated saying $$\hbar\alpha=1$$. 64.223.113.109 (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm particularly thick tonight, but I can't see your point. I didn't change any of the definitions, just did algebraic shuffling. Still, if you think it's more obscure this way I'd like to understand why. LeadSongDog (talk) 05:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)