User talk:SquisherDa

Watchlist check SquisherDa (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)SquisherDa (talk) 12:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome!
Welcome!

Hello, SquisherDa, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! (+)H3N-Protein\Chemist-CO2(-) 16:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Structural Homology
I've linked to the discussion from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cellular_Biology. I'm not sure how active they are right now, but hopefully someone will have a chance to respond. My take on it is that there probably should be a separate article for structural homology, something like Structural Homology (protein). Right now there is an article on homology modeling but it largely sidesteps the issue. (+)H3N-Protein\Chemist-CO2(-) 16:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Manchester United is a football club, and you can cite another one and say Manchester City is a football club
Nah, that's not a problem. You just can't combine sources to make a new argument, look at WP:SYN. Dougweller (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Cheers for your comment, Dougweller . . I've looked again at WP:SYN, and it still seems to me that if read/applied strictly, that policy does have the potentially-obstructive effect I described. I'm aware of guidance/policy that common sense should be applied - and it certainly seems to be common sense that citing separate references for Man U and Man City being FCs is enough to warrant a statement that both are FCs . . but it seems to me that what WP:SYN actually says seems to prohibit bringing the two sourced statements together in this way.  And what's said elsewhere (as follows; my emphases) distinguishes what's likely to be disputed versus what could be disputed - but requires both to be supportable by citation, and so seems to reinforce this potentially-obstructive application:


 * 66
 * It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged.
 * 99


 * WP:CALC solves a related but different problem . . different in that WP:CALC authorises baby-steps of arithmetic rather than of logic. (Possibly different in another way too: WP:CALC's phrasing gives the impression that it's limited to interpreting / citing a single source, which of course is another big difference: but I think there may be no real intention to limit it in that way.)


 * It's tempting to suggest extending WP:CALC to cover logic, in addition to arithmetic. Basic logic-steps seem at first glance entirely straightforward / uncontroversial.  (By contrast, people are often surprised by the results of routine additions, let alone working with percentages; and in practice WP:CALC is probably often relied on to deal with totalling and rounding errors as well.)  But not all cases are quite like my Manchester example . . WP:SYN explores a simple example about the UN's effectiveness.  An even simpler one, which in its logical structure is as elementary as Manchester, is as follows.


 * Where one good source says (a) the conventional English view of history holds the Germans responsible for the Second World War, and another says (b) ditto ditto First World War, an extended WP:CALC would allow a contributor to write that (c) the conventional English view holds the Germans responsible for both World Wars. It may be true that (c) is the conventional English view.  (For the period to, say, 1990, I'd say it was; and it must still be widespread.)  And it may not - which of course is the point.  (As time brings perspective the English have become more reflective - and more aware of the differences between those wars and their causes . . I'd imagine a lot of people now regard it as intrinsically unlikely that a nation would choose that road twice.)


 * I describe WP:SYN as "seeming to" bar the Manchester conclusion, "if read/applied strictly". (And it does actually say it bars "[any] conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources".) But the reason it gives for the prohibition is that "this would be . . to advance a new position" (ie, as you've phrased it, a new argument). I wonder if the solution is that, well, sometimes putting A and B together, to make A & B, is "advancing a new position" (as with World Wars); and sometimes it isn't (as with Manchester), and is then OK?  This shifts the focus from WP:CALC-style baby-steps of logic to what is / is not a "new position".


 * (So what's a "new" position? Perhaps "new" means that some readers might regard the result as raising doubt about / putting significant extra pressure on the starting-points.  So, in the Manchester case, a reader might feel a sense of surprise that Manchester has two major football clubs, and wonder about the implication that Manchester must be a fairly big place (or that maybe there are two places called Manchester??): but provided the sources are of the quality you'd expect for uncomplicated factual/reference material the reader should accept them as bearing the extra weight without question.  Whereas in the Germany case, most careful readers would doubt, or ask to be told, whether the cited authors of the sources even had any opinion at all about what the English public think when (if) they consider the two Wars together.)
 * SquisherDa (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think that saying both are clubs is a problem, although saying Manchester has 2 football clubs probably would be as there could be 3, etc. I'd hate to see WP:CALC extended to cover logic and am sure it won't be, as there would be interminable arguments about if A and B were appropriate, accurate, whatever. But I agree, the question of what is a "new" position is key. This really should be at the talk page if you want to change NOR. And I really don't have time to respond anywhere else, sorry. Dougweller (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey
Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,

the wub (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

The Signpost: 6 September 2016
 News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia
 * News and notes: AffCom still grappling with WMF Board's criteria for new chapters


 * Special report: Olympics readership depended on language


 * In the media: Librarians, Wikipedians, and a library of Wikipedia coverage


 * WikiProject report: Watching Wikipedia


 * Featured content: Entertainment, sport, and something else in-between


 * Traffic report: From Phelps to Bolt to Reddit


 * Technology report: Wikimedia mobile sites now don't load images if the user doesn't see them


 * Recent research: One study encounters critique of its ethics from Wikipedians; another critiques the ethics employed by Wikipedia


 * Blog: Upload of free photos from Swiss library underway

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 16:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hindu wedding, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abhishek ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Hindu_wedding check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Hindu_wedding?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk page message: policy shortcut
Thanks for your message. The policy shortcut template is used in individual policy-page sections to indicate alternative redirects to that section. See Shortcut for more information. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited HCS, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Holy Cross School ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/HCS check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/HCS?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

re Talk:Atlas Air Flight 3591
mostly WP:FORUM Andrewgprout (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Cheers, @Andrewgprout. Yep, we were talking about different things.  I was looking at the contributor’s intent (and the expectations and understanding of future contributors).  Thus I was on about what to assume, about that.  U were looking at the contributed content  - and its value, which was - uh - limited.  :-)


 * - SquisherDa (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

CANIC
Thanks for referencing the redlink policy. I just wanted to point out the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System was similarly created from a red link, but now it is a poor duplicate of the grounding/return to service developments. Shencypeter (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Right-wing politics: Please self revert
SD, the material you restored does not have consensus for inclusion. Since this is new material consensus must be gained before inclusion, even if a RfC is in process. Springee (talk) 10:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Just so you know
Just so you know, edits like this are a waste of effort. On some browsers / screen settings / font settings the text fit on one line before and after your change. On other browsers / screen settings / font settings the text takes up two lines line before and after your change. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, cheers :-)  Mostly it was the duff sentence-structure I was trying to fix - concision getting the layout neater was just a nice extra if achievable.  – SquisherDa (talk) 06:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the invitation! But I don't at all feel able yet to present myself to a young newcomer as 'know [ing the community and "how things work"'].  (Not too sure how well I'd do at the 36hr thing either!)  – SquisherDa (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

A453
The a453 is near the crashsite. If you look at the photos on the article page and on the internet, you will see what I mean.61.88.9.50 (talk) 06:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well yes, but is it helpful to mention this? - SquisherDa (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Unconditional surrender
Your edit seems like the best approach. Adding a source that does the questioning, unless that is the article somewhere already, could also be helpful. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Yes, what the article says (now: at the end of the lede) is this:
 * The historicity of this incident has been questioned by Islamic scholars[14][15][16] of the Revisionist School of Islamic Studies[17] and by some western specialists.[18][19]
 * U'll see there are several references. Views seem to differ on whether it's legitimate for a brief remark in one article, drawing on another, can rely on that other article's references - but copying half-a-dozen seemed a bit disproportionate in this case!
 * Do U think we should split off the sentence (in ) to a new final paragraph and add a final cross-reference in brackets? -
 * The historicity of the incident has been questioned. (For references see main article.)
 * --'' SquisherDa (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would suggest citing one (maybe two since they come from different schools of thought) of the references and then add your parenthetical expression as "For other references see..." I think this should reduce concern about referring to the other article for all the citations. I think your idea of splitting off the sentence into a new paragraph would add some clarity. I usually favor that approach but as far as I know, that is just a matter of my preference based on that further material being a separate thought. Donner60 (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * To choose among references I'd need access to them, which I don't have. (I'd be uneasy anyway about giving a selective picture? of a (hopefully!) consensus elsewhere?)  I'm with U on separate paras for separate matters.  But I've found myself directed to owt in the MoS against single-sentence paragraphs, when I've done this concisely!  The phrasing I've suggested is intended to avoid that objection!  --'' SquisherDa (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The historicity of the incident has been questioned. (For references see main article.)
 * --'' SquisherDa (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would suggest citing one (maybe two since they come from different schools of thought) of the references and then add your parenthetical expression as "For other references see..." I think this should reduce concern about referring to the other article for all the citations. I think your idea of splitting off the sentence into a new paragraph would add some clarity. I usually favor that approach but as far as I know, that is just a matter of my preference based on that further material being a separate thought. Donner60 (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * To choose among references I'd need access to them, which I don't have. (I'd be uneasy anyway about giving a selective picture? of a (hopefully!) consensus elsewhere?)  I'm with U on separate paras for separate matters.  But I've found myself directed to owt in the MoS against single-sentence paragraphs, when I've done this concisely!  The phrasing I've suggested is intended to avoid that objection!  --'' SquisherDa (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would suggest citing one (maybe two since they come from different schools of thought) of the references and then add your parenthetical expression as "For other references see..." I think this should reduce concern about referring to the other article for all the citations. I think your idea of splitting off the sentence into a new paragraph would add some clarity. I usually favor that approach but as far as I know, that is just a matter of my preference based on that further material being a separate thought. Donner60 (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * To choose among references I'd need access to them, which I don't have. (I'd be uneasy anyway about giving a selective picture? of a (hopefully!) consensus elsewhere?)  I'm with U on separate paras for separate matters.  But I've found myself directed to owt in the MoS against single-sentence paragraphs, when I've done this concisely!  The phrasing I've suggested is intended to avoid that objection!  --'' SquisherDa (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Battle of the Big Cross
Have responded in part to your comments on this article's talk pageAineireland (talk)