User talk:LeadSongDog/Archives/2011/March

Free the electron!
Could you come over and review an article of mine? U.S. state reptiles for FLC.

P.s.

Two atoms are walking down the street. Says one atom to the other, "Hey! I think I lost an electron!"

The other says, "Are you sure??"

"Yes, I'm positive!"

TCO (talk) 06:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I think you'd like Kate and Anna McGarrigle's NaCl. LeadSongDog come howl!  15:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Christianity
I'm concerned about this edit, which has the appearance of wp:CANVASSING. I hope that's not the case.LeadSongDog come howl!  14:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't intend it as such (if members of WikiProject Christianity are known for trying to promote a particular point of view, I wasn't aware of it) - if you think it would be a good idea, I'll gladly edit or remove it. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The other option would be to match it with similar invitations to other interested project talkpages. I haven't followed the specific discussion, but I've seen enough contentiousness at talk:abortion to infer what might have been going on. Best to be transparent. LeadSongDog come howl!  15:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Which other portals do you think I should take it to? WP:abortion has been inactive for a while, I think, and I was actually worried that taking it to wp:feminism would be much more likely to be seen as a canvass. (I'd figured that, whatever the result, it would involve Christians or Christianity, so that portal was a good one to take it to, but I recognize I may have been wrong. I can't actually figure out which option you think I'm canvassing for. :P) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen that you're a conscientious editor, and I don't actually think you are canvassing, just that that invitation could leave that impression to a polarized reader. When in doubt, I'd suggest you ask on the talkpage of the affected article. Certainly include the talkpages of those projects identified on that talkpage's headers, which is to say at wp:WikiProject Abortion, wp:WikiProject Conservatism and wp:WikiProject Medicine. I wouldn't assume just because a project page is inactive that it is unwatched. If you need a broader response still, there's always the wp:Village pump. Good luck.LeadSongDog come howl!  16:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Rename of Acharya articles
You have started similar conversations on 2 talk pages - Talk:Acharya Maharajshree Tejendraprasad Pande and Talk:Acharya Maharajshree Rakeshprasad Pande. Since the result will have repercussions on these two and other Acharya article pages, its best to continue on one page - since Wikidas has answered you on Talk:Acharya Maharajshree Tejendraprasad Pande - and that is where the last similar conversation took place, lets continue there. Around The Globe सत्यमेव जयते 06:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. LeadSongDog come howl!  17:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Immediatist
Thank you for your explanation. Might be I'm immediatist. Certainly I will get the best data I can get. For medical encyclopedia mainly related with prescription, we should double extra care. Although it is not a guarantee, if some drug has been approved by FDA ussually the other will follow. And as I know the drug will not distribute, if they has no approval from the authority. Might be I'm not correct to explain/describe it. Recently some online journal has published before printed journal. And some researchers, analysts and inventors sometimes make press conference to reputable journalists for patent concern. If has been announced to public, so you are the first (depends on the country). Newspaper certainly not a printed journal, but I think they are get better now than before. About twenty years ago when Compaq computer still a hot topic, they run a burn test for 3 days, but finally Compaq was not do it for the newer computer. Changing is so rapidly. Certainly health is not a computer, and printed journal is not encyclopedia, and also encyclopedia is not newspapers. I hope I may fit the needs.Gsarwa (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow your meaning, but welcome, anyway. LeadSongDog come howl!  08:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

state reptile
Hi dog. I have responded to all your review comments.TCO (talk) 09:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Otitis media
And we have this ref. A few new papers have come out on the topic in the last few months and I have not been able to update this page yet. Still waiting for the further analysis. But regardless this text did not belong in the section on signs and symptoms. And it is controversial thus needs a ref... Feel free to jump in... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW I have posted a bunch of more recent reviews on the talk page. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Review
Leadsongdog: do you support promotion of U.S. state reptiles to Featured List? (FYI:  TCO (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks man. I am used to academic journals (solid state, not bio) where the editor just kind of makes a call after looking at reviews.  TCO (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

let the electrons move with high mobility!


Thank you for the engagement with our little quirky article. The content on conservation sprung from you and has been very well received. And is very appropriate to this type of animal in general. Kudos for the insight and I hope we can have fun (I mean, make content) on wiki in the future!

TCO (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism
I am familiar with the term WP:vandalism, and my edit summary referred to an edit carried out by a bot, presummably operated or run by an editor.

If I or you took a cited reference that was valid publication, i.e. references to specific pages in a specific volume of a book published in four volumes, and changed it so that the cited reference "appeared" to be an article in a journal that would be vandalism. I don't see what difference the fact that the operation was carried out by a bot makes any difference. For your information, the description "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia"; and it appears to be applicable in this case. Pyrotec (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The nub is the "deliberate attempt to compromise". It is fairly obvious that if you or I did it, this would have been seen as the honest mistake that it was, based on the misleading input data.LeadSongDog come howl!  22:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I replied on the bot talkpage about publication dates: Volume 1 was published in 1964; Volume 2 published in 1965 and volume 3 in 1967. However, returning to the "problem in hand", its not the misleading data that was the problem, it is the misuse of that input to make changes to wikipedia without first validating the input. As I said before if you or I changed a reference from pages in a book to a review of the book that is vandalism: "honest mistake" does not come in to it. I know the difference between a book and a review of a book and I assume that most editors would also have that ability, if the bot does not then the bot has not been correctly configured. Just to make it clear my edit summary stated vandalism by bot, not vandalism by bot operator: I'm willing to accept that the operator made an honest mistake. Bots should comply with Bot policy, that this bot is not fully compliant. Pyrotec (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you actually believe that editor's honest errors constitute vandalism, I believe that you fall in a tiny minority. Most of us know that we are fallible and we expect those failings to be reverted in good faith. There is no one objecting to your reversion, but the accompanying edit summary is unnecessarily offensive to a very hard-working bot operator.LeadSongDog come howl!  05:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not purposely attacking the editor, its becoming obvious that the bot is misbehaving (and the maintainer has to be responsible for the actions of the bot, that is the only reason that permission to operate the bot was obtained). That was not the only "honest error" made by the bot (to paraphrase the above), another valid book was changed to a journal article of a similar but not identical title. Perhaps, in view of your comments, you are the bot operator: but I'm not trying to attack you: I'd just like it to stop changing valid citations. Pyrotec (talk) 09:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not the operator. For any bot, the bot's userpage will identify the operator. In this case, it is . But if you simply read the bot's talkpage you will see that he is (extraordinarily) industrious at addressing problems when they are clearly identified. But you're still not getting it. If the citation was valid, it wouldn't have been changed. Even so, if editors want to exclude the bot from changing a page, they can exclude it. See the bot exclusion discussion on the bot's userpage.LeadSongDog come howl!  12:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are quite right, I am not getting it. I fail to see how any sensible person would take a book reference, go and find a vaguely similar journal article and mix the two together. Urbański was "my" reference, i.e. I added it, but not Cooper. I also happen to have Urbański to hand so I can see what is written on the cover and title page; and I prefer to use cite book but there is/was a bot going round changing cite book to citation, but I can't say whether it happened on this article, or not. I also went to the British Library Integrated Cataloge and confirmed that the publisher of Cooper was Wiley-VCH; its also confirmed by the images at and, but not the text.Pyrotec (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The bot can only work from a database record that it can find. It can't OCR the associated pictures, even if they were reliable (which they are not: Amazon and some fellow travellers will grab any image they can rather than leave the frame blank). It can't read the hard copy you have in your collection. The OCLC data is derived from a multi-library collaboration process. Several libraries can independently catalogue the same work under distinct numbers. It often takes several years for the duplication to be detected and then for the records to be merged into the lowest-numbered one. Similarly, one edition can carry multiple ISBNs when it is published by different publishers (this usually means there was a geographic division of publishing rights, but can be multiple printings without revision or sometimes even publisher mergers). But if fields are populated with data that contradicts what the cited database record says the bot is supposed to try and resolve the discrepancy. It searches to see if another record matches the data better. Now that I look at the BLIC record, I see it shows two ISBNs, one of which is ISBN 1560819278 (VCH) and the other ISBN 0471186368 (presumably the Wiley-VCH record, though I'll have to check). These are the same two ISBN-10s shown at . Now, Wikipedia has articles about books. These need reliable sources, which are often found in book reviews. When our editors use those sources, they of course cite them. The bot cannot discriminate against book reviews just because the article you are working on isn't about a book. That might, however, be a good contextual key for the bot's next revision. LeadSongDog come howl!  17:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011
This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at User talk:Orangemarlin, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''Please do not remove funny, hysterical commentary from my user talk page! Especially, when you're the author. LOL'' Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 05:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Its done
No problem I just did that for you. I agree its more of a list. If I had to make a guess I would say its your browser. There has been a rash of complaints in various discussion boards about WP suddenly not liking older versions of IE but I don't know thats the problem for sure. --Kumioko (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)