User talk:Squidfryerchef

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Fire Star 火星 17:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Squidfryerchef. Thanks for dropping me a note. If we want to get more detail on the type of touch that's meant, looking for sources from human behavior experts that describes the type of touching would be much more useful than using the jargon of a poorly known sub-culture. I think this could be a productive road to go down, though I don't know of any research off the top of my head.

My problem with the kino reference was that it was kind of irrelevant. As a word it has many different connotations. Typing kino into a search engine doesn't get you much information on flirting. And the seduction communities use of the term kino may not cover all the ways in which touch is used in flirting. Our manual of style guides us to not use jargon in general. Sometimes that guidance isn't appropriate. But using kino isn't like using most jargon in a computing article because generally their aren't many competing terms within the area of computer expertise. When a piece of jargon is not fairly universal it would generally be a particularly poor decision to choose to use it. So one group has a particular word for something - by itself that's not really encyclopedic. Within the area of human behavior and flirting there are hundreds of different sub-cultures, many of which have their own words for different things in the article. Why are we highlighting that particular one? As an encyclopedia we report on the significant opinions of experts in the field. If we want to cover the idea of words being coined by different groups to cover aspects of flirting, we need first to ascertain that experts who study flirting have noted this phenomenon, and then quote them. If, say, a psychologist who publishes papers on human relationships has looked into this and written a book, newspaper article or paper that covers it - that would be a great source. Or possibly a language specialist who happens to have looked at this particular area of human language. Otherwise we're just putting together our own assortment of facts and opinions on what's notable about the subject. And that becomes original research (not that the rest of the article is so great at the moment!). --Siobhan Hansa 04:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"As far as original research, I don't see any problem with people sourcing ( with references ) terms from various subcultures in the article and comparing them, as long they're not trying to advance a particular thesis." As I mentioned above our articles are supposed to represent the significant opinions of experts in the field. If experts on human behavior have written about the seduction community's use of the term, I think that could be a good addition. But otherwise, referencing a sub-culture's terminology (and even their definition) when they are not considered significant by experts is promoting a particular organization, and consequently their POV, in an unencyclopedic fashion. We're not a portal to anything and everything to do with the subject, we're an encyclopedia, and we're supposed to be developing authoritative articles, not ones that mention cool things we've read. Putting together things we've read in a way that does not represent expert opinion is original research - though this is hardly up there with writing an article about a quack physics theory!

On the footnote/reference thing, looking back through the history I see the editor before me turned the mention from a footnote into a reference - that's probably what drew my attention to it. --Siobhan Hansa 21:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Squidfryerchef. I've gone ahead and changed the table at Citizens' band radio slightly; I hope this is what you had in mind. It should now be a little easier to add or remove stuff as well: the rows and columns in the wikicode (if you use your imagination) coincide with those of the table and its contents. Cheers! —Xhantar^Talk 21:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ( if this is the right page to be giving my thanks on ). This is closer to what I was hoping for, and it's something the other editors of that page could agree on. Squidfryerchef 02:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to find a source that says [some] jelly beans are actually flavored with anise oil. Please read WP:NOR. Dreadstar † 03:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please quit adding Original Research to the Jelly Bean article, it violates policy. Dreadstar † 22:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not OR, it's a good link fron a reliable source. I'm trying to imporve a crufty article, please stop being disruptive. Squidfryerchef 22:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely is original research. If you believe I'm being disruptive, then take it to WP:ANI, but quit edit warring to add your OR to the article. You are inferring that Licorice jellybeans are flacored with anise, but you have no source for that. It's clearly OR. Ask on the WP:NOR talk page, if you like, or get a WP:3O. Dreadstar † 22:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no, it isn't. Not unless OR stands for "obviously right". Please see the comments on your talk page. I can discuss it further. Squidfryerchef 22:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIV and WP:AGF please. Take it up the chain. Dreadstar † 22:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What gives? Squidfryerchef 22:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded and archived, what of it? Dreadstar † 22:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well how about we finish discussing this hair-splitting regarding the OR policy? Squidfryerchef 22:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opened discussion on WP:NOR talk page. Squidfryerchef 23:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I don't know how I can make it any clearer, but I'm willing to try.

Here's what I see:

Policy: WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, which states:

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."

Source A: Liquorice candies are flavored with Anise. (Source does not mention Jelly Beans)

Source B: Black Jelly Beans are liquorice flavored. (Source does not mention Anise)

Synthesis: Black Jelly Beans are flavored with Anise. (Original research/analysis/synthesis)

This is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the fact that because "liquorice flavored candies" are flavored with anise, then 'liquorice flavored Jelly Beans" (which are candies) are flavored with anise.

The excuse that it's "just a link in the article, which doesn't draw a conclusion" is flawed and incorrect, because its mere presence in the article draws a conclusion, even if not explicitly stated. Been there, done that.

I dunno...I actually feel pretty dumb about this argument, but can't you find a single reliable source that actually says that some Jelly Beans are flavored with Anise? It seems simple - but I looked and it isn't at all simple to find a source that says so. I wonder why? Anyway, here are two moderately acceptable sources: [1] [2]. Those can be used, but not the one that's unrelated to the subject of the article...which is Jelly Beans, not "candies". Dreadstar † 23:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's actually my point. I don't think "source being related to the subject of the article" is to be taken so literally. I think the source only needs to be related to the sentence is being footnoted. The other issue is that a jellybean is only a particular shape of hard candy, and wouldnt be flavored any differently than any other hard candy. If it were a certain _brand_ of jellybean than I would feel very differently and insist on a statement that that brand has a particular flavoring. Squidfryerchef 23:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see what the others have to say. Jelly beans. Who'd of thunk. You know, doing the research really makes me wonder if Jelly Beans are flavored with anise at all...some of the sales sites say it, but why are there no relaible sources for such a thing? Mebbe it's not even true anymore..and they're all synthetically flavored.....oooOOOoooo...;) Dreadstar † 23:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well my take is that jellybeans are just a differently-shaped sweet, and would use the same flavorings as lollipops, etc, even sodas. If someone did the same thing about a brand-name confection, or even something like a liqueur that might not be a brand name, but had a generally accepted way of making it, then I'd be making the same edits and OR claims. Anyway it's more complicated than that, you'll probably find "licorice" candies made from anise, star anise, artificial flavorings, and true licorice. But the point is that in the U.S. "licorice" is so often used to refer to things flavored with anise that there is a lot of confusion, and the article ought to say something about that. P.S. that Canada.com article might not be usable for the "anise" issue but it does resolve a lot of the unsourced data in the article. Squidfryerchef 00:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact it doesn't matter (IMO). It's more "these episodes are not notable, and the series isn't even running anymore so it is unlikely they will ever be". Per all the AfDs I have seen and WP:EPISODE, these plot summaries and trivia have not much chance of survival in an AfD. Personally I tagged all these after crossing 3 of them in PROD patrol, and I thought the case was clear for deleting the others in this series sharing the same problems. Arguably, when I started tagging, I didn't expect to see that many articles without anything notable. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on talk page. Squidfryerchef 21:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point noted :) As I said it doesn't really matter IMO, the articles don't assert anything is notable in these episodes. We aren't imdb :). But thanks for your message -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else removed the prods. I have therefore brought the pages to AfD where their deletion can be discussed. Since you were interested I'm letting you know. Cheers! -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:No original research, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 07:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:No original research. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 08:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi, I saw you are contributing with that article, so could you please keep an eye about some people adding L. America as a region of large popularity. I'll already explain proving data that the only American countries with a large popularity in the young population of this music are indeed Argentina and Canada.

For the sake of the article's quality, and its reliability try to reverse the info, when one dance fan (just because of his/her taste) changuing it again.

Ally —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.126.236.40 (talk) 07:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That section's been a problem for a while, with IP editors who keep switching between Argentina and South America, and keep swapping Canada and Japan between the high and middle popularity categories. Squidfryerchef 15:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

in relation to your question about RDS radios, the simple answer is 'yes'. The Radio Data System is designed with a subcarrier system which identifies information about radio stations it can currently receive. This is how traffic announcements work, as the radio notes the signal given out. There is also a special broadcast code which will interrupt any RDS radio, provided it is given out in the normal FM range (86-108).

Owain.davies 18:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the data subcarrier is part of the FM broadcast I'm listening to, just like the different channels of stereo. So if I'm listening to station X, there might be a message about what song is playing, etc. But what happens when an ambulance is coming up behind me who has an RDS transmitter? I'm assuming they're transmitting with very low power on some unused FM frequency. But I don't understand if I'm listening to station X, why it would all of the sudden pick up the ambulance on frequency Y? Unless the RDS radios include a second tuner that constantly scans the dial for emergency anouncements.

Squidfryerchef 22:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It works exactly the same as traffic announcements - your RDS radio constantly scans for these, whether you have it turned on or not, and if you have the TP feature enabled, traffic announcements will interrupt whatever you're listening too. These data carriers will be picked up by your radio as soon as they are in range. The system was originally designed for the emergency broadcast (and is still used for that in many countries) - In the event of national emergency, the appropriate authority broadcasts their messages and a channel 31 carrier signal, and all RDS radios will switch to it, so nobody misses out. Quite clever really. Owain.davies 10:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, since I don't want to get into a revert war over a picture caption, we'll leave things as is. Your's is still a fairly accurate description of the image shown. One thing that I will point out from the old description, is that it mentioned "solid-state". Don't you think that is worth keeping, since a lot of amateurs still work on and use vaccuum tube radios? Edit Centric (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's something to think about. I know that even today lots of linear amps are made with tubes, but I think the radio having digital-everything more than implies solid-state. Of course, that logic wouldn't hold true for guitar equipment, where it's not unusual to find digital effects _and_ tubes in the same preamp. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it suggests, an ABS indicator is a light (green flashing in the EU) which activates when the anti lock brakes activate, to provide extra warning to other motorists that the braking is particularly sharp. As for the list, I don't see whats wrong with specifics, and as for the wording, it is correct, as all other uses are illegal. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 12:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not see the citation tags when I refer to each numbered naval region, after I say, 'the 1st is at Kalemie' or whatever, there's a cite? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I thought there were uncited sources in addition to what was already footnoted. I reworded it so the sourcing is a bit more obvious. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...on free newsweeklies. I'll pass it on at Talk:Robot. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have been actively involved in past discussions regarding PSTS, please review, contribute, or comment on this proposed PSTS Policy & Guidelines.--SaraNoon (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to strike this personal attack and take care to assume good faith in future. MastCell's nomination arguments at the AfD were based on policy concerns and the condition of the article at the time of nomination. At no time, neither in the nom nor in discussion, has MastCell offered "I don't like it" as an argument. Thanks for doing the right thing here. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a personal attack, its a strong doubt as to why this was nominated for AFD. I believe with four secondary sources and an award it more than meets the general notability guidelines, as well as the notability guidelines for films. We can continue the AFD discussion on the AFD talk page. Thanks. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found your comments quite reasonable, and as the consensus went for "keep," I'd like to ask you to keep an eye on the article. I was recently permablocked due to efforts by Will Beback and SlimVirgin (using her "John Nevard" account,) with an assist from JzG and Jayjg. They intend to remove material cited to LaRouche sources, and replace it with material from their friends Chip Berlet/User:Cberlet and Dennis King/User:Dking, who are both obscure activists/journalists who found a niche of sorts by becoming professional slanderers of LaRouche. An article that purports to be about LaRouche's views, but is in fact a propaganda parody of LaRouche's views courtesy of Berlet and King, would be a POV travesty. Thanks for your consideration. --Terrawatt

Also, the Nevard account has already done extensive POV surgery on Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement, removing material sourced to the organization in question while adding additional material from Berlet and King. --Terrawatt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.191.179 (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebutted. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 15:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your feedback at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Not "insidious OR", but there are other issues with the wording. Could you also post your comment at Talk:Raw foodism? Cheers, --Thermoproteus (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi, I replied to your comment there. I'm okay with the redirect but not the target.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cryptol. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. KP Botany (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your advice on the Reliable Source notice board re: old scanned newspaper articles. You were a great help! 72.11.124.226 (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you had visited this page. There is some ownership and OR going on and I am trying to help. I don't know if you might be interested. If not, no problem!--—CynRN ^(Talk) 18:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came there after studying a discussion on WT:NOR ( really should have been on the NORN noticeboard, but the discussion was already in play when I came in ). Basically there was a paragraph that I felt went way too deep on a tangent. It also could have been read that if cooking had only been in existence 250,000 years instead of millions, that was too recent for humans to possibly adapt to, which doesnt sound right to me. However, to fix this would have required a teardown of the wording and building it back up with other opinions, and the paragraph is probably still there. This topic isn't my area and I didn't pursue the debate any further, but you can use my reasoning at WT:NOR, archive #39, under Not "insidious OR", but there are other issues with the wording, to argue for improving the context or removing the irrelevant material. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like your edits to the two Citizen's Band articles, except that, in CB usage in the United States, I think the section "Adjacent frequency bands" ought to be back as a subsection of "Related radio services." --Spike-from-NH (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I handled it in a different way. Made it more obvious that I was separating the other services that share the CB frequencies ( Class C, Part 15, Part 18 ) from the services just outside the CB range ( Part 90, Amateur, USAF/CAP, civilian federal gov't ). Of course, this might get more interesting if I add a section on channels 24-40 and which services they used to be a part of. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Elegant Exponents for deletion. Please cite some notability on the AfD discussion page reference from the top of the article if you believe it meets notability guidelines. Dmcq (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the discussion there would it be a reliable source to look at deeds of the land as owned by those who were there before the college existed? The owners of the land in 1891 were C.H. Freeman, J. Gaffers, G.W. Dennison and T. Grummer. This map maybe of some use- http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~28473~1120877:Portion-of-Albany-County-and-West-T, as it does show boundaries for old District No. 13 and 11, aka- Newtonville & Loudonville respectively. The school at the corner of Fiddlers Lane and Loudon Road east of the blue shaded area labeled as C. Hicks is the Newtonville School House, listed on the National Register of Historic Places in Albany County, New York148.78.249.33 (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think looking at deeds, to trace whether the Siena land originally belonged to the Newton or Ireland estates or neither, would be a great addition to the article. Deeds should be reliable as primary sources, but I don't know how they are usually verified. This must have come up before, why not post a new section to RSN and ask?

That's a fine map. Perhaps it could be used as an external link on the page about Colonie. Siena is clearly in District 13. But 13 doesn't necessarily mean "Newtonville". Maybe it has something to do with elections; the map doesn't say what the districts are for. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned cleaning up articles on Cuba, and I was wondering if you'd be willing to help clear up some problems concerning some of the Cuba articles, particularly concerning the article Racism in Cuba. I found many problems with it, and tried to get assistance from Admins multiple times, but was largely ignored. I know you're not an admin, but you seem like someone who would be willing to help. Zd12 (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try the Cuba Wikiproject instead of asking admins, who are usually asked about administrative topics such as edit wars. I don't know if I can help so much with the cultural articles, but that one should probably point out that like most Caribbean countries it doesn't have the binary black/white distinction that much of the US had. There will no doubt be opposing viewpoints, and it will be hard to tease apart racism per se as opposed to legacies left over from colonial times. Right now Racism in Cuba is turning into just a jumble of quotes which is not good, but a Google Books search for racism and Cuba shows books that may help make sense of the topic. Also another solution would be to expand the article to the subject of Race in Cuba which may be easier to get agreement on. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Li Yong (Tang Dynasty), and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Nlu (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC) --Nlu (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Li Yong (Tang Dynasty). For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 20:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to bring back up the whole argument over Newtonville/Loudonville from a couple months ago by asking this question, so I'm just coming to you with this. I dont know if you remember, but we both noticed that on the 1866 map on Colonie, New York both Loudonville and Ireland's Corners were shown even though Loudonville's article (and lots of sources) say Loudonville used to be called Ireland's Corners, and you had the source that said the Ireland's Corners PO was expanded and renamed Loudonville in, I think 1868 or something. But in doing more research for the history of the hamlets in the town of Colonie and former town of Watervliet I keep coming across gazetteers that list both separately and seem to refer to them as different places http://history.rays-place.com/ny/albany-towns-ny.htm is the most clearly worded reference where they are clearly referred to as different places. Obviously to say in an article "Ireland's Corners was a separate hamlet that the hamlet of Loudonville later absorbed" would be labelled as OR unless a source was found that specifically said so, but if that IS the case because (and this is just a thought, I have nothing to back this next thought up) what if its not that the IC post office was "expanded" but that it actually MOVED to Loudonville and that is why it was renamed, and with no post office of their own, IC began to consider itself part of L. and identify with it and lost its identity. Today the "Loudonville Post Office" isnt at the original Ireland's Corners anymore, its in a modern shopping plaza and therefore had to have moved at least once.Camelbinky (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't apply "it must be either X or Y" logic to such fuzzy borders. We know that there was a landowner named Mr. Ireland who started a post office. The post office and the immediate area ( probably not a hamlet ) came to be called Ireland's Corners. Loudonville was to the south. It's an interesting idea that the Ireland's Corners post office could have moved instead of merely expanding its area, but the albanyruralcemetery source only says that it expanded its area. Our writing should reflect the simplest possible interpretation of the sources. The existence of a modern "Loudonville" post office still doesn't contradict Ireland's Corners expanding in the 1870s. If you want to mention that there is now a Londonville post office in a shopping plaza, that's fine. But I looked online and while a Colonie web page mentions a present Loudonville PO with an address just a mile west of the old Ireland's Corners[3], the USPS.com post office search refers to this post office as "Kimberly Square". So I wouldn't make too much of this. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 00:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Simon Dodd has requested comment on the proposed merger. You are being informed as you participated in the recent AfD discussion. Discussion at Talk:Bristol Indymedia Jezhotwells (talk) 08:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second RfC on sourcing for Eurovision articles has now being running for several weeks, you can view it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision articles. In order to help gauge the spread of opinion and draw conclusions from this discussion a straw poll has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Straw poll. All project members are encouraged to read the RfC thoroughly and then cast their votes as they see fit. Rationales are still encouraged in the main discussion area above the poll, and participants can add appropriate new sources or options to the poll as they wish. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please get in the habit of reading the full source, not just the headline. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, actually, I did. Please get in the habit of reading WP:SOAPBOX and WP:AGF. Response is on article talk page. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, actually you didn't, as you didn't cite the source but rather the headline. Care to comment on talk about this? Viriditas (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just sent it off. An edit conflict had to be merged. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the beer goes into a footnote? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above was in reference to the "never mentioned race" debate. But we can put the beer in a footnote. Squidfryerchef (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In light of your reasonable edit which, in my view, correctly deleted the Robin Wells commentary from Arrest of Henry Louis Gates, will you consider and possibly edit Teachable moment#Political use? In narrowly defined sub-section context, I plan to add a few more examples of "spin", expanding beyond this foundation. I wonder if this can be achieved consistent with WP:NPOV?--Tenmei (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WTF - I go away for two days and I come back to another protected page. There wasn't even that much activity! This is getting out of hand with the Admins.Mattnad (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding. If anything they should protect the talk page. The old saying "too many cooks spoil the soup" applies. The admins should pick say seven editors, people like Arcayne who want the article to be complete and don't wear their politics on their sleeve, and let them work without all the newcomers coming in and stirring the pot. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. I removed the mugshot so I am responsible for taking it out, I am happy with that. You should be happy that I took it out as it was you who replaced it. I am from the UK, would you provide a citation for your claim that people in america often serve only a couple of years for murder. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I just reverted an edit of your to WP:RS/N by mistake - my laptop slipped at my hand happened to come down on the touchpad while the cursor was (apparently) hovering above the [rollback] button. Just wanted to explain what happened. Guettarda (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's cool. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for your comments at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#60_Minutes_and_the_Assassination_of_Werner_Erhard. The issue is that due to the lack of independent reliable secondary sources on the book and on the author, the community came to a consensus to delete both articles. And since proper attribution cannot be given (though the COI issues and unreliability issues are apparent as demonstrated in the RSN thread) the source should not be used on Wikipedia. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a further point of clarification, I think it is likely perhaps that the group does not want it made readily apparent that the book's publisher is associated with the group's attorney, which would explain why connecting the dots (though obvious via the info at the RSN thread) is not available via secondary sources that could be used to proper support attribution in main-article space. Cirt (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This comment by Nathan (talk · contribs) sums it up quite well: [4]. Cirt (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt, that's a pretty suspicious characterization. The publisher was printing diet and self-help books at least a decade before the book we're discussing, and some of the authors acknowledged EST in their introductions. There's no secret involved, only a question of whether the publisher was technically part of the group or only a friend of the group. I've added some more information about it to the noticeboard thread. And let's please keep noticeboard discussions on the noticeboard. I don't check the noticeboard any less frequently than I check my own talk page. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we can keep discussion there, thanks. Cirt (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eurodance came out in the early 1990s, and I am looking for some early 1990s Eurodance music. Can you please give me an example of one of these songs as well as the artist's name? BulsaraAndDeacon (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another Night by Real McCoy, More and More by Captain Hollywood Project, It's My Life by Dr. Alban, What Is Love by Haddaway, Move On Baby by Cappella, (maybe) Strike It Up by Black Box, there's a few listed on the Eurodance article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for some early 1990s as well as mid-1990s happy hardcore songs. Can you please give me some examples of happy hardcore songs from both the early 1990s and the mid-1990s? I would appreciate your help if you could. BulsaraAndDeacon (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know too much about happy hardcore, but there's a German band called Dune that sounds about right. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I know you are a reliable sources expert, so I thought I would ask you about this article from Examiner.com. I recognize this may be a murky area of journalism, so you may not have a firm answer, but if not perhaps you could direct me to where I would get one? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the reliable sources noticeboard, WP:RSN, Examiner.com has come up a number of times and many editors have expressed concerns about whether it has enough editorial control over what its members publish. I tend toward an inclusionist stance on reliable sources, so I might allow a cite to Examiner provided it wasn't used to make any controversial claims, that it was used to cite only minor details, that it was relevant to the topic, and that the information wasn't available from more conventional sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tx. If I were to use it, it would only be vis-a-vis what it says re a band playing the showcase. But I don't want to use it if it would be a problem.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it was just to say that a band played at a certain venue, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, in reference to your comment here, on what basis do you think the opinion article by Javedanfar in the Guardian can be used in the way it is being used? It is an opinion piece, and WP:RS makes it very clear that opinion pieces cannot be used to support factual claims. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the way it's used currently; I'd prefer a subsection titled "Controversy about his background". Anyway, there's a discussion about whether or not it's an opinion piece and how it should be used over at WP:RSN#Troubles with the Ahmadinejad biography. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Squidfryerchef, I noted your comment that seemed to support Ratel's wish to use a creationism website as a source in Ian Plimer's biography. I think it's pretty clear that SPS can never be used as sources about living people and I am concerned that you misunderstood the issue (i.e. it looks like you thought Ratel may have been trying to use the source at a Wiki page on creationism, not in Ian Plimer's biography). Am I correct? Alex Harvey (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond at RSN. I check it at least as often as my talk page. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believed you weighed in on the issue of the SPLC and the Rushdoony page. I wanted to see if I could enlist your help to reinsert the Chalcedon information and source that was in the article, but was removed by Jayjg when editing the SPLC claims back in. I don't want to be accused of edit warring, so I'm refraining from editing the article. Thanks! Shazbot85^Talk 08:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your (as always) helpful comments at MM. One of the critical book reviews is now in the article; as the others have been objected to, I've posted them at the RS noticeboard. One thing that puzzles me is if what is being offered is a book review opinion of a book, I'm not sure what relevance a newspaper's fact-checking has. In any event, I've posted it, and will look for community reaction.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tx again. Nice work.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Squidfryerchef. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM, a discussion in which you participated, was closed as redirect to Open Watcom Assembler. Open Watcom Assembler has now been nominated for deletion due to notability concerns. If you would like to participate in the discussion, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If at the AfD discussion, people have lost/not realized that wp:org says (in part):

A[n] organization ... is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources....

If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability....

Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability.

--Epeefleche (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That second line speaks towards a "keep" decision. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep -- my thought as well (as does the third, which was already made, albeit without pointing to wp:org).--Epeefleche (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if that impacts your last comment at the AfD. I guess the main issues w/a merge are the generic ones: a) if keep is proper, why not keep; b) one loses the categories -- since the person often doesn't fit into the org categories; c) it gives undue focus, making it seem as though it is more about one individual than about the group -- we have one president (as is typical), but also two other board members ... and another non-board member who is quoted in the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After testing out your reaction to it, and seeing it the same as mine, I've added the wp:org quote to the AfD discussion (below my initial comment). Tx for your input.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at WP:RSN. Mjroots (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in this RSN discussion, as you commented in the past on one of the sources. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You recently participated in a discussion about Newarticletext, your input would be greatly appreciated to reach a conclusion. Cheers, Cenarium (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you opine at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Humor.2Fsatire_articles. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Really I had no idea I was so influential on RS. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd wait just a bit for the dust to settle some before commenting here, but I found your stepping up to the plate in today's RS/N WND "dustup" to be somewhat unexpected, quite impressive in its deliberative impartiality...and admirable. Frankly, given my current level of popularity in those parts, I was anticipating little or no support from any quarter should some admin-level heavy handedness be brought to bear...as it was. Hence my comment in your RS/N written as a fond adieu to the process. Given the circumstance, the prospect of now bucking heads with an admin over the very survival of the RS/N was just a non-starter for me. Perhaps now, because of your timely intervention, something good may yet emerge from the process. I hope so. Anyway, while our opinions may differ, I think you did well by the Wikipedia process and I just wanted to tell you so. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently referenced your comments offered in the RS/N discussion(s) on WorldNetDaily WP:RS considerations within a related issue being discussed in the RS/N "talk" page. This message is to notify you of that reference and to both solicit and encourage any further contributions you might have in this matter. Thanks. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a late response to a comment you made as to indictments and the like. IMHO, of course, it would be nonsensical if the rule were "You can't use the indictment as a reference to reflect what the indictment says -- instead you have to rely on what Al Jazeerah (for example) said the indictment says". Or: "You can't use a NY Times editorial (the primary source) as a ref to reflect what the NY Times editorial says -- you need an Electronic Intifida article (for example; the secondary source) summarizing the NY Times editorial as your reference". The guidance doesn't say that. It does have a sensitivity, as you point out. The guideline in question, though no doubt it could have been drafted more carefully, is clearly aimed at: "personal details—such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses". We don't have any of those concerns in the articles that were under discussion, but I still struggle w/an editor who believes that indictments handed down by a grand jury, on which there is a conviction, are verboten ... because they are "primary" documents. I think that is a misreading. If you have thoughts you can reply here; I'll watch this page. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say an indictment would be fine as long as there is a secondary source that says the indictment is important, and backs up the extraordinary claims. For instance, if we were writing an article about a bank robbery, we could cite newspapers for that the robbery happened and who was indicted, and then cite the indictment (with attribution) for fine details, such as how much was allegedly taken. That's just good source-based research. What we don't want is people looking up old court records of movie stars and writing that they were guilty or innocent of such and such, when the conviction might have been overturned or it's someone else with a similar name. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree. The way I would put it would be the secondary source establishes the notability. At that point the indictment can be use for facts. After I left you the above note, I see that an editor started an uber-long discussion on the issue. It may interest you. My views are here, and the views of others are expressed before it. I'm concerned by how many people seem to be missing some points in the discussion. They've turned what appeared to be a "let's protect BLPs discussion" into a "let's say secondary sources are the best ones" ... completely contrary to what every British and US courts (and common sense) would say.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A little over a week ago, I started this thread on the BLP noticeboard based on concerns you expressed in this discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. The discussion seems to have stalled. Perhaps you'd like to weigh in? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Squidfryerchef. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2#Bullshido.net, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sir, in relation to this article List of Astro channels AFD, an editor with a user name User:Active Banana proposed that Channel Listings should be included in WP:NOTDIR with the argument that Channel Listings are not encyclopedic. User:Active Banana is quite persistent about the deletion of the Channel Listings but he/she does it only to Philippine Pay-TV Companies. Please check the discussion here and please give any input about it. A lot of editors including myself were already complaining, irritated and very peeved because the user, User: Active Banana was really agressive and kept on deleting the Channel Line-Ups in Philippine Pay-TV Wiki articles ONLY. When I pointed him the List of Verizon FiOS channels and told him why he/she can't delete that article when it is purely a Channel Listing, he/she gave an answer that I cannot decide what he wants to edit or not. He seems to pick only on Philippine Pay-TV Wiki articles. Can you give any inputs, suggestions or feedback with the discussion. Thanks in advance. - G8crash3r|talk 15:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists (television). Taric25 (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})[reply]

I found a debate on deletion of "Views of Lyndon Larouche" from a few years back, where you wrote "The reason why an article like this is necessary is that there was an Arbcom decision a few years back that LaRouche media outlets couldn't be cited, even as primary sources, in articles other than those about the LaRouche organization. So this article is necessary as its the only place to write about the LaRouche political positions on a variety of topics, and it's too long to merge into the main article." There is now an effort underway to ban LaRouche media sources from that article as well, which seems to me to be a bit ironic. I think it should include LaRouche sources or be re-named "criticism of LaRouche." MacMahon the Marshal (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In order to contribute to a discussion (Spanky and Our Gang & sources) on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard which was started a week or so ago and has been archived, may I cut & paste that archived discussion to the top of the current list on that noticeboard and then make my comments, or should I add my comments to the discussion in its archived location. Can you answer this for me on my talk page please? Emhale (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Years ago, you made a statement regarding the acceptability of patents as verifiable article sources. I have come to conclude that patents are irreconcilably unacceptable as sources, not just because of clear appearance of this class of document here, WP:SPS, but also because their use demands expertise. As a consequence, the very selection of one patent as a source, and its use without a secondary legal or scientific source explaining the meaning and interpretation of the patent, requires WP:OR. An exception might seem to exist for a statement like "A patent exists for…", but even there, the selection of one, or a few patents, out of all, is either capricious, or involves expertise and WP:OR (e.g., of the sort that the author of a secondary legal or scientific author would use in writing a review of an area of IP law or IP coverage of a particular area of science or technology. Thoughts/comments? Esp. interested in firm WP policy statements, and higher level Admin decisions on the matter. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a discussion of my use of my uploaded Commons photographs to augment architectural text detail in churches here. As a contributor to a previous 2009 discussion on the use of photographs I would value your input on the notice board. Many thanks. Acabashi (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]