User talk:MichaelPTaylor

I am Mike Taylor, software engineer and occasional palaeontologist. My Wikipedia edits are mostly in articles related to dinosaurs. MirkMeister (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Scholarly Kitchen
Before I deleted it for copyright problems, I noticed you had commented on Scholarly Kitchen's noteworthiness. I'd love to recreate the article if it is in fact notable, so I'm trying to find some good, independent sources about the subject. Do you know of any articles, news items, books, etc that discuss SK that ought to be included in the article? Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the Scholarly Kitchen is widely recognised and quoted, even by those (such as myself) who strongly disagree with most of what's posted there. It's an important source, and absolutely notable. See for example the citation of The Scholarly Kitchen as reference 2 in this peer-reviewed PLOS ONE article: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0050109 MirkMeister (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree about its impact and notability. I'm just wondering if you have any sources about SK (or SSP for that matter) that would be good to add.  Any pointers for reducing drama would also be welcome. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 23:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the drama is that you refer to -- I can't see the article as it was pre-deletion. Also not quite clear on the distinction between sources that cite SSP and sources about it. Anyway, David Crotty (david.crotty@oup.com) would be a much better person to ask for this kind of material. MirkMeister (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to your criticism of my handling of this issue; you said this could have been done with less drama. I'm asking to see what you had in mind. I can't see the article as it was pre-deletion—I'm not sure what you mean; if it addresses your question I'll say it was essentially a mirror of SK's website's "about" page; please let me know if you need something more specific. Regarding the distinction between citations of and sources about, the point is that we want the SK article to say things, and we need to refer to sources that verify that content.  We need them for a proper article on this subject.  I see the point about how citations to SK make a case for its importance, but I don't know if there's any way to reflect that in the article.  (There might be; it kind of seems like there should be—maybe some 3rd party analysis of how many citations it gets?)  Anyway, thanks, ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 23:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. No, by dealing with the copyright issue "less dramatically", I meant by editing rather than deletion. I didn't mean that here was any drama about how the deletion was done. Meanwhile I thought that you meant the page itself was unnecessarily dramatic -- which is why I said I couldn't comment on that given that the post was unavailable. MirkMeister (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see your point, and in particular I really regret how long these were blanked/deleted for. That, among other things I did here, has really contributed to a feeling of hostility.  I should have realized my actions came across that way and done things differently; I'm sorry about that. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 07:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Erik. Good to see the pages back. MirkMeister (talk) 07:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)