User talk:LeadSongDog/Archives/2009/January

Welcome!
 Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including WPMILHIST Announcements there.
 * Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, article logistics, and other tasks.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
 * If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts and copy-editing alerts.
 * The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill 17:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The best of the season


From: Flower of Scotland     Re: Rags

Editing Rags is my first encounter with Wikipedia and I am not even sure this communication is being correctly handled.

The written edits that you removed are my material copied from my original article written over 10 years ago.

At their request I sent copies of my original work to both the Harbor Defense Museum at Fort Hamilton in New York City and the 1st Division Museum outside Chicago. they both have these copies in their files. The 1st Division Museum sent me a release form allowing them to reproduce my work which I signed and returned.

I then made the mistake of placing the exact same story of Rags on a Web Page created on AOL. Since that time my work or parts of it copied word for word have appeared on a number of other Web Sites, including the one you refer to in your message. The Find A Grave web page uses my information and a web page K9History used my material word for word with the comment that " it was found in cyber space".

My belief is that the material I placed on the Rags page is coprighted to me as the original author and the source you name and others have violated my copyright. Only the 1st Division Museum in Chicago is permitted to use it.

My AOL web page no longer exists since AOL has ended that program.

My history with Rags goes back over 60 years. I first read Jack Rohan's book as a boy and upon retiring in the early 1990's researched Rags at the N.Y. Public Library and used Rohan's Book and N.Y. Times articles to write my paper on Rags. I have since been able to obtain a first edition copy of Rags.

I might add that I have 3 degrees in History, the most recent being an Honors level from the University of Dundee in Scotland.

In restoring the information to the Rags page you have restored a number of errors. Rags was born in France not the U.S. and the events of July were the 14th, Bastille Day, not the 15th and the year was 1918 not 1917. Also the term press-ganged is totally inapprobriate.

I might also note that I have listed the sources for my material which you will not find with any of the other copies of my work.

In summary: The copyright for any of the original, sourced work I placed on the Rags page is mine. FlowerofScotland (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Your fault!!!!!
We'll see what happens. Thanks for updating my list! Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 06:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A check for copyvios is probably in order. Answers.com detected!LeadSongDog (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

WWI
I'm sorry, but whilst there is a comment on the talkpage, it hasn't been discussed with any of the other editors involved with the article. Since it's going through a large debate at the moment concerning major changes to its structures, I won't undo my revert. If the change of date is discussed with other editors and a consensus reached, then I won't undo any further changes, but not until then. Skinny87 (talk) 07:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)
The December 2008 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) 03:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"ultimately scorn"
After I added that, I realized that the larger problem was with the word "ultimately," not scorn. But is there really a source which uses the word "scorn"? 69.228.82.93 (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone is free to do it, but I don't take out language that I know is true in substance, even if it isn't sourced, unless it's known to be controversial, and in that case I might cn-tag it, as was done, I think. (This is about a phrase in Cold fusion. There is scorn, rejection, mockery, disbelief, contempt, all of that, and I think anyone who knows the field would agree. As to how pervasive this is, and how deep, that's another story. It never reached the point of a true consensus among the knowledgeable, but I can say that as to how the topic was generally perceived, it was that scientists had rejected it, even though, in fact, there remained a significant number of qualified scientists who continued to research it. --Abd (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

whitelisting of lenr-canr.org bibliography.
You suggested somewhere that we might whitelist the extensive and very useful biblography hosted at lenr-canr.org on low energy nuclear reactions ("cold fusion"). I'd like to propose that, would you support it? --Abd (talk) 02:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That was here. I'm not completely sanguine about it, though. I'd prefer to find a way that didn't adopt its selection bias.LeadSongDog (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not clear that there is a selection bias for the bibliography. If Rothwell is accurate, he'd host copies of everything relevant, including all the critical material, but there is a selection problem there because it's possible it's more difficult to get permission for negative results. But that doesn't apply to the bibliography. If there is significant selection bias in that bibliography, Rothwell is shooting himself in the foot. I'd assume that the bibliography would include publications on the topic that aren't reliable source, but that's not selection bias, that's being complete about a topic.
 * One of the arguments given when the blacklisting was challenged at meta was that we could easily whitelist any page we found useful. Instead of going to the whitelist page, where most editors don't have the foggiest, I'd rather try to find agreement among editors involved with the article. I can say that as a reader, I'd want to know about that bibliography, even if it were *totally* biased, it would at least help me find one side of the story. So ... are you aware of any significant publications on the topic that aren't in the bibliography? Or are you just assuming bias? --Abd (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's more that I'm not prepared to assume there isn't a bias or (equivalently) that the list is complete. The obvious concern is that he may be less likely to index articles that he can't get permission to host, but more subtle factors may come into play such as which notification services he gets. Alternately, it's possible for library tech wizards to adopt his entire list of articles into a citation engine and then look to see where they get cited in turn. That gets beyond what I'm set up to do, but I understand it can be done.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I came across a December 2005 comment by Rothwell about the issue. It wouldn't make sense for the bibliography to be biased, and only a fraction of the articles in the bibliography are hosted. It may be only a third or less. Unless there is a better bibliography, or some positive evidence of bias (and maybe even if there is bias!) that bibliography should be an external link. (On controversial subjects we do sometimes link to an advocacy site, which is described as such. But I don't think the bibliography is an advocacy page.) --Abd (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support
Thanks for your support in the Talk:US Airways Flight 1549 "discussions." I felt like I was arguing in the wilderness among a group of editors who want to turn this article into a USA TODAY story! (Centpacrr (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC))
 * No sweat. It's a perennial problem with all the accident and incident articles. The flip side is that all too often the deletionists want to trash interesting articles on a misconsidered interpretation of WP:NOT. LeadSongDog (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So it would seem. I will keep trying to "fight the good fight" and will much appreciate any and all assistance. I have added the following sentence to the Accident Investigation section:


 * "As the Airbus 320 was manufactured in France, under the provisions of ICAOAnnex 13 both Airbus Industrie as the manufacturer, and theBureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyse as the French counterprt of the NTSB, will also be parties to the accident investigation." (Centpacrr (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC))
 * I have just made one and (I hope) final explanation as to why the airplane's "vital statistics" are important and should be retained. If you would be good enough to add a brief "amen" perhaps this will finally put an end to this noisome campaign by the deletionists to be "convinced" of the obvious. One can always hope anyway. Many thanks. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC))
 * Thanks for your right on target comment in Talk:US Airways Flight 1549. I have also added a link to CFR 121.380.2. (Centpacrr (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

Courtesy notice
This courtesy notice is being offered on your talk page as you have been active in music related discussions in the past. A discussion of a proposed wording change to "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" - Criteria 6 is underway on the Notability (music) talk page. Your feedback is appreciated. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion about Jed Rothwell
I have given up responding to Jed Rothwell because I don't think he is trying to improve wikipedia. If enough people did that maybe he would stop posting. Just a thought. Olorinish (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's what Guy was on about with his RBI. I should have paid closer attention.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help
...both with my list and the suspected open proxy report. How'd you come across this? Maralia (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're more than welcome. This guy's gonna hurt somebody (if he hasn't already). I forget exactly how I found your page, but stumbled on it while chasing back the damage he'd done to Alzheimer's disease. I looked at the IP's contributions, looked at details on nearby IPs and saw a pattern, then started to work up a case for a range block. (I have the javascript-enhanced contribs lookup tool enabled.) Somehow hit your page and saw you'd already done a load of work on it. In the Alice's Restaurant spirit, I "decided that one big pile was better than two little piles" and pitched in.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, did those piles involve any 8-by-10 color glossy pictures with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was? I'll be humming that song for the rest of the day. Risker (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll ask the seein' eye dog.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Little context in Know Your Mushrooms
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Know Your Mushrooms, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Know Your Mushrooms is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Know Your Mushrooms, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)