User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 41

=April 2010=

Copy edit request
Hey, I saw you are active with the Guild of Copy Editors. I am in the process of getting a FA review for Quicksilver (novel). One editor commented that it needs copy editing by experts and was wondering if you would be willing to copy edit it, to help me get the article passed? Sadads (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, sorry about the early edit-conflict. Keep it up and I will back away for a little bit to let you control what is happening on the page. Thank you again. Sadads (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. I hadn't noticed the EC. I broke off editing that article to clean up (in part; still needs work) the Albert Mehrabian article. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 20:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done as much as I can deal with for one day. The rest of my week's pretty busy, so I'm not sure I'll get around to doing more.  I would suggest first and foremost making sure that sentences are neither run-on nor fragments.  I've noticed several times some problems in this area, particularly use of commas and the creation of run-on sentences where a period/full stop and a new sentence would have been better, or at very least a semicolon.  Secondly, there at least *was* a lot of over-citation. I removed a lot of it, but some probably remains. Any time two statements (directly quoted or not) are back-to-back from the same source, it is usual to put the source citation once, at the end.  It's especially annoying to the reader to see a statement that a reviewer said "x", and also said "y" and furthermore said "z", and have a redundant source citation for each statement.  Citing them individually is only needed if they are in different parts of the article, or if they have been challenged and other editors are demanding citations. Another problem is over-linking (linking stuff more than once) and underlinking (loads of things like "Turkey" and "alchemy" and so on were not linked, and I've only linked a handful of them (but don't link everyday words like "sun" or "desire" or "politics"). Hope this helps. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 23:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Very good job sir. I didn't realize how many unconscious detail (and code) related mistakes I had made (The alt text snuck in without me noticing during the GA review). It is surprising that no one else caught these or brought them to my attention. I will definitely review the suggestions above in the next several days. Your help is really great. As I noted in the FA nomination, this is the first time I have taken an article to review before (the reception of other editors had been overwhelmingly positive so I thought the article was ready). Thank you and am looking forward to any other edits you make. Can I keep you on my contact list for future articles? Sadads (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. I did a lot of geeky editing this time, but it probably needs some more prose work. Overall, I think it's a fine article. Esp. compared to the other one I worked on today... — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 23:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:MODLANG
Hey, I was just reading WP:MODLANG, and I left a suggestion on the talk page. I just wanted to see what you had to say on that- you seem to have a clearer idea in mind than I do. Please do discuss it on the talk page. By the way, I think that page is a really good idea, and I think it could become a very integral part of Wikipedia. Thanks!! The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I haven't been "advertising" it much. It needs some research. Some editors think that some of the points in it are either just personal opinion or are WP:ENGVAR issues. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 04:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you'd think most of them were common sense, except that common sense isn't always as common as the name would imply. The problem is, WP:ENGVAR doesn't seem to cover some of these topics, or doesn't mention that there are exceptions (i.e. your comment on capitalization of bird names, and what to do about that to avoid edit wars).  Many of the problems on WP:LAME could have been avoided if people read something like your page.  As an aside, I still don't understand why it is so fantastically important to capitalize bird names, when we wouldn't even think of doing that for reptiles or amphibians.  Anyways, I responded to your comment on the talk page, and I hope that helps.  The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 05:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The bird thing is one of the most @!#@$ing irritating things on all of Wikipedia. I absolutely hate it. What happened is that "birders" (birdwatchers and in a few cases actual ornithologists who are editors here) observed that the bird-related scientific literature, as a matter of convention within that field, tends to (does not universally) capitalize common names of birds, and then set about to insist on it in WP, even though WP is not scientific literature and is not within the field of ornithology. This tiny minority of editors were simply so tendentious that everyone got tired of arguing with them.  The main problem with this is that it's like negotiating with terrorists: Now others who want some weird-ass exception to everyday guidelines (see nastiness at WT:NCP for examples) have gotten the idea that the way to get what they want is to argue and attack, month after month, year after year, until they just wear out the opposition, hold progress hostage in a continual filibuster, and meanwhile ignore the guidelines they don't agree with and do things their way to such an extent that they have a fait accompli - it would take too much work to undo their mess.  The second major problem of this bird names thing in particular is that it is actually spreading. I cannot count the number of times I've had to clean up articles where the common names of bears or snakes or bees or whatever were being wrongly capitalized, obviously because someone saw this being done for birds and assumed that's just how we do things here. I know it's the birds thing, because this was not happening on a regular basis three or four years ago, but is now rampant.  It just makes me apoplectic.  I largely just have to avoid the issue and the people responsible for the whole abomination, and keep to editing in areas where I don't get frustrated.  I've had fun doing a lot of really pretty random copy editing, as well as working on cue sports articles (my pet topic).  I've been trying to resist getting into big discussions on WT:MOS and such places these days, because it just raises my bloodpressure.  >;-) — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 05:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm totally with you on that.   I put in a word over at WP:Words to avoid, haven't gotten much of a response.  We'll see what becomes of it.  The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

RP discussion
Hey Stanton. I happened across this discussion just now and I thought you might have some interest. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
We have WP:BRD. Ham tech  person  01:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ping
I've emailed you. Tony  (talk)  09:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Category placement
Category:Date of birth missing and its sister categories say that they should only be used on talk pages. This seems like this was implemented before the addition of the hidden categories feature. Is there any reason to continue putting this and other similar categories on article talk pages rather than on the articles themselves? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was actually thinking that the other day myself. My answer would be "no" (i.e, I agree with you).  Let me know if you want to make a motion in the direction of changing this. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 06:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A motion sounds good, I suppose. What does that entail exactly? I could probably write a script to convert the current categories over, but I guess there should be some sort of consensus first? --MZMcBride (talk) 06:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say it needs to be raised at WP:CFD, which is the source of the original decision to put such categories on the talk page. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 19:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Right-o: Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 14. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sexual capital
SM: the article that was erotic capital should probably be restored to that title. Two published academic articles and one popular press article uses the term "erotic capital"; only one published article uses the term "sexual capital" (though both terms refer to the same thing). At minimum, the article title should reflect the name of both concepts. It remains to be seen which concept becomes dominant in the field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.77.58.178 (talk) 06:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that nothing in that article is properly sourced at all, I did most of the source cleanup myself, the one academic source that uses the term in its title does so as "sexual capital", the one journalistic source, that prefers "erotic capital" isn't even cited properly, and from what I've seen in other sources cited in the article, I stand by the move and related edits. The term "erotic" is rarely used in anthropological and sociological circles in technical terms (while "sexual" is, very consistently (perhaps giving way to "gender" in some cases, over time), and I don't see any clear evidence at all that the term "erotic capital" is a preferred term among practitioners in the relevant fields (sociology, anthropology and perhaps psychology). And that's considering this issue in the context of the quite limited extent to which it is even recognized as valid. I almost AfD'd this. If you want to move it back, file a motion at WP:RM and make your case; I won't have any anything to say about it there that I haven't already said here. Actually, I'll do it for you; it's easier to just refactor this as a RM !vote than to rehash the argument manually. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 07:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The term "erotic capital" and its appearance in published academic work:


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "properly sourced". Are you merely referring to articles with that term in the title?  The term erotic capital appears and is developed in Green's 2008 paper,  "The Social Organization of Desire", Sociological Theory 26:1 March.  This journal is THE Amercian Sociological Association's theory journal -- i.e., it represents that body's best work.  It also happens to be the same journal in which the Martin and George piece appears (2006).


 * The term EROTIC CAPITAL has also been recently used in Catherine Hakim's artice by that title, forthcoming at the European Sociological Review.


 * In addition to Hakim (2010), The term also has appeared and cited to Green (2005 and 2008) in the following published academic work:


 * 1. Between deference and distinction: Interaction ritual through symbolic power in an …sagepub.com [PDF]
 * T Hallett - Social Psychology Quarterly, 2007 - spq.sagepub.com


 * 2. Men Sexually Interested in Transwomen (MSTW): Gendered Embodiment and the …
 * MS Weinberg, CJ Williams - Journal of Sex Research, 2009 - informaworld.com


 * 3. A Foreign Adventurer's Paradise? Interracial Sexuality and Alien Sexual Capital in …
 * J Farrer - Sexualities, 2010 - sexualities.sagepub.com


 * 4. Bare Bodies: Nudity, Gender, and the Looking Glass Body
 * MS Weinberg, CJ Williams - Sociological Forum, 2010 - interscience.wiley.com


 * 5. Internet Sex Ads for MSM and Partner Selection Criteria: The Potency of Race/ …
 * JP Paul, G Ayala, KH Choi - Journal of Sex Research, 2009 - informaworld.com'''


 * THE TERM "SEXUAL CAPITAL" has also been used in Martin and George (2006) and in number 3 above.


 * I don't think there is agreement yet on which term will prevail in the field. Frankly, SM, no insult intended, but it is not for you (or any single person) to arbitrate on which term is "better" or more clear for Wikipedia.  Wikipedia's mandate is to report published terms in the field, not to weigh in on it.  In fact, there are good reasons to use erotic, not sexual, as Hakim argues -- because the former connotes a much broader set of possibilities for sexual power in a field.  But that's not for me to decide either, hence why the term should include at the top of the page BOTH names.


 * Finally, the article on erotic capital does not say that Green INVENTED the term. It says that Green has systematically developed the term in the Sociological Theory article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.77.58.178 (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back to me, but you needn't argue with me directly on my talk page about it. This isn't an issue between you and I, it's an issue that needs to be resolved at the article in question (if that article is even to survive at all). You do not appear to be reading your own talk page. Multiple editors have asked that you start using talk pages properly by signing your posts (with  ) so that your comments are properly attributed and time-stamped, yet you still are not doing so.  If you won't follow basic posting conventions here, I hope I can be forgiven for being skeptical that you will follow more complicated article-writing policies and guidelines, such as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:COI, etc.  The problems with the article in question have already been explained in some details in the course of tagging them for cleanup. But if I may rehash them and hopefully be clearer and more instructive: The main sourcing problem is that the article appears to have been created by the person responsible for the definition being advanced in the article, and to continue to be edited by that person or someone close to that person (i.e. you). This is a major conflict-of-interest problem, especially in light of the fact that 5 seconds worth of Google Scholar searching shows that the term has actually been used by others, in different contexts and with different meanings, since at least the 1950s. This makes it a neutrality problem of a major sort, too: The article is firmly advancing the position that this term means one particular thing, as defined by one particular academic, and reality begs to differ.  This, in turn, cascades into a "what Wikipedia is not" problem: Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advancing any biased point of view.  Next, the sources as they appear in the article have been very clearly tagged as inappropriately cited. They are simply dumped at the end in a blanket claim that all of them apply equally to every word of the article, which this is very clearly not the case.  See WP:CITE.  Every specific claim of fact in the article needs to be cited to a specific page in a specific source (see William A. Spinks for an example of how to do that properly).  And where sources differ, the article needs to make it clear that sources do differ and in what way[s]. I agree with you that there isn't a clear indication yet which term will prevail in the field, if either. That said, I've already provided, at the article talk page, a justification for "sexual" over "erotic", and you've not adequately refuted it. The term "erotic" is not used as much as "sexual" in any relevant field, and the former term is extremely loaded for most general readers (this work, Wikipedia, has a general audience). Anyway, no one, least of all me, is criticizing Sociological Theory as not a reliable source. Of course it's eminent. The citation problem is that reference is simply made in blanket fashion at the end of the article to material published in that journal, without any indication at all what specific facts alleged in the article are citable to this source.  The entire article has to be re-done, sentence by sentence, to cite specific sources for all claims that it makes. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 23:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

RESPONSE: I'm sure you would agree that there are very few terms in the English language (or in any major language, for that matter), beyond highly technical ones, that have not been in use before at some point in time. Very often ideas and concepts fall into obscurity because after their initial invention they fail to ignite the interest and imagination of others, until finally someone comes along and frames the idea/concept as something that inspires others to use it and develop new lines of inquiry. So the fact that there exist other references to the term decades ago does nothing to invalidate its current entry. And, in fact, recently, someone added Hakim's new published work on the term, and rightly so, as it represents another valence of the concept that's been picked up both by a major sociological journal (THE ESR) and a host of British and Australian popular press outlets.

My point: no one is sitting like a king over this page preventing others from adding definitions of the concept that appear in published work. To the extent that the page discusses some of the MAJOR work now using the term in the ASA's top premier theory journal (GREEN'S and MARTIN AND GEORGE'S)--and work that is explicitly referenced in SIX subsequent published articles, I see no problem in linking the term explicitly to the researchers of these papers -- i.e., Green (and Martin and George).

Indeed, if we use the criteria that no article should be published on a concept unless every published form of the term is incorporated into the article, Wikipedia would all but cease to exist. But by all means, should you be so inclined, perhaps you would like to add a few sentences or even a new section that outlines some legitimate, alternative uses.

Regarding the argument about "sexual" vs. "erotic", what is interesting is that most of what you write about "erotic" being less concrete a term than "sexual" is precisely the reason why researchers have preferred the former to the latter. Erotic capital is sexual, yes, but not only sexual in the Bill Clinton sex=intercourse model. Eroticism is indeed much broader, is not burdened by the telos of a sexual encounter, and ties much more nicely with the dynamics of power that researchers are trying to unearth in their study of sexual life. Much of this power is generated through teasing, flirting and the like -- the very connotations you associate with "eroticism." In an ironic way you make their very point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.77.58.178 (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Documentation
Please see Template talk:Documentation. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, I had no idea that this issue was still unresolved. Thanks for the heads-up note. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 22:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And thanks for your support there. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Dubstar singer's accent
I've just replied to your question about Sarah Blackwood from Dubstar's accent at Talk:Dubstar. Don't know if you're watching the page, since you asked the question last November, so thought I'd let you know. 62.31.190.206 (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This really pisses me off
Only $51.43. They've got a pool table on the cover. Fucking idiots.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, Masako Katsura, is just about ready for WP:FAC, following a GA review (passed), a peer review, and many additions.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Featured article candidates/Masako Katsura/archive1.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit Backlog Elimination Drive
{{Resolved|1= Hi, as a member of the Guild of Copy Editors you're hereby notified of and invited to participate in the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May 2010. Please help us eliminate the 8,000+ copyedit backlog! Participating editors will receive barnstars and other awards, according to their level of participation. ɳorɑfʈ {{sup| Talk!}} 00:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Godwin's Law Reversion Requested
Stanton, can you return the article on Godwin's Law to one of the earlier good versions? It's recently been screwed up by ignoramuses. MikeGodwin (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Doh, I forgot was still pending. Has someone else fixed it yet? — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 19:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)