User talk:Light show/Archive1

I rewrote the vaccine genetics section. You can view it at Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak#Option B. Since you voiced your opinion before the new option was available, I figured that you would want to reevaluate. hmwithτ 21:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this subsection deleted? Contained information that was very relative to the swine flu response by world governments and provided one of the only non-US perspectives/response. Please reply or will revert your delete asap. Bretonnia (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The news is full of reports from all countries that have had flu cases of some response. Read the section on containment and quarantine, school closures, air travel, vaccines, etc. It would be immediately imbalanced to have a single non-US country's responses noted without allowing any country, most much larger in population, to include theirs also. But I think it's worth adding to the article body itself when any country does some newsworthy (i.e. radical) response actions, such as when Mexico shut down their capital city of 15 million people, which was incorporated in the body, not a separate section. Anyway, those are only one person's opinion, and you can easily post a discussion about your question to the discussion page. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, however, most other countries are not at the epicentre of the outbreak and Canada has the largest concentration of swine flu out of any country in the world. The response by Ontarios director of health is powerful as in his educated opinion the flu will not be that bad compared to other viruses an epidemic prone area has seen before. Responses from the US, Canada, Mexico, Australia, and the UK would be very fitting and permissable in this area. Bretonnia (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would add a cited statement in the "Northern hemisphere" subsection about it being the "epicenter," since that seems like good information. But note that Mexico was originally at the epicenter and this description for Canada might change also eventually.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is fitting as this is clearly a government response. Perhaps we can change the U.S. response to "North American Response" and take the information from the US and add in Canada + Mexico? Failing this as the american info is alot we might as well just make a Canada subsection. Bretonnia (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the large number of cases, I haven't read much about the Canadian government's responses, so I can't really suggest anything. But trying to combine Mexico-US-Canada response as a unit seems unworkable since Mexico is still a developing country with a less advanced medical system than the U.S. or Canada. Why don't you just start a topic on the talk page -- with your cites -- about Canada's response, especially noting how they differ from the U.S., if you think it's valuable information to include? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would advocate a trimming of the U.S. response and add brief summaries for Mexico, Canada, UK, and Australian government responses. Ill post a thread on the articles talk page. Bretonnia (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swine Flu 2009 Can you give me some feedback on why my post was removed? 05:27, 26 June 2009 (hist) (diff) 2009 flu pandemic ‎ (→Vaccination: possibly a faster vaccine and a prediction of pandemic? Advanced warning http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS139159+27-Apr-2009+PRN20090427 New vaccine process proposed. http://www.telegram.com/article/20090623/NEWS/906230410/1101 Thanks in advanceTfcmc (talk) 04:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

They were removed by user:WAS later that day. He wrote that it was because they read like company promos. IMO, they didn't fit since they did read like brief news releases: "A new vaccine process has been proposed by a company . . . . and another company claims to have predicted this pandemic." So neither story was based on outside neutral sources and they were both speculations, not factual. With so many news releases and brief clips about the flu coming out daily, it's wise to filter them out. News stories should be well sourced and also incorporated into the context of the section. Hope that helps. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wikiwatcher1. I needed some clarity on the use of those pages. In future, I'll try the talk pages for things like that. I was looking for more information on both those claims to see if they were true. I have much reading to do about posts. Tfcmc (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added back in the first paragraph minus one line. This paragraph contains some hard figures on flu death reporting for seasonal flu which is important context. It also contains a quote about influenza surveilance information which is an important caveat and a good way to start a section on data reporting. I haven't changed anything else in your editing of this passage. Just giving you a heads up. Barnaby dawson (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Verlinsky1.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 22:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you credit the original photographer/source on the image page? Was the image taken by the AP or just re-used by them? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an FYI, I explained my reasoning for the redirect in the discussion. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 01:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've unprotected the page, so you're welcome to change it. However, I didn't change it myself, because there doesn't appear to be a consensus to do so... yet. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 02:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Berlin-Ellin42.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 72.88.78.193 (talk) 05:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read the comment you left to WatchingWhales. I wanted to let you know that our policies and guidelines are far stricter than US law with regard to fair use- instead of using what is legitimate via fair use grounds, we have our own, far stricter, non-free content criteria. For instance, you requested that WatchingWhales retract several deletion notices- File:Salk Institute opens.jpg is an image of a building that is still standing merely to show what the building looks like, and so is considered replaceable as per non-free content criterion 1. File:Berlin-Jolson27.JPG is potentially problematic in a number of ways- see my comment above. File:Mayerportrait.jpg should certainly not be used- we have free images of the subject. Our goal is to use free content as much as possible, and use non-free content only as an absolute last resort. The same applies to Image:At Piano.jpg (now deleted). File:Schulberg-portrait.jpg (when originally tagged) lacked a copyright tag. For these reasons, it would seem that WatchingWhales was entirely justified in reviewing your upload log- checking the upload log of someone who has uploaded problematic images is obviously a good idea, as it helps to find other problematic images. I would not take WatchingWhale's actions personally, but rather view it as him checking for mistakes in the same way someone may proof-read several articles written by someone who speaks English as a second language. J Milburn (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hit you with a flurry of notes, but I thought you would want to know that I have removed the book covers from Loren Eiseley and tagged them for deletion as orphans. The covers are adding nothing, and book covers are generally only used on author pages if the covers themselves are significant and worthy of discussion. The usage on Loren Eiseley seemed primarily decorative. If you disagree with this action, you are welcome to contact me on my talk page. The images in question are File:Saw through time.jpg, File:Immensejourney.jpg, File:UnexUniverse.jpg and File:080326741X.jpeg. J Milburn (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwatcher, when I first started to edit Wikipedia in 2006, I was uploading a lot of non-free and copyrighted content. This was before all of the copyright hysteria was ingrained into the site, and many of my uploads were deleted, and I was angry about it. What I did instead was focus on taking pictures myself.

User:WatchingWhales is a sock of mine that I primarily use to write articles (so that this account doesn't have a million edits in my history of my article writing; I delete the User subpages and then post the articles under this name, so you aren't privy to a good deal of the edits that WW makes). I don't typically debate with users on this account, and I certainly wasn't targeting you. Your explanation on my talk page was enough to satisfy me that you are doing the necessary due diligence on these images you are uploading; however, please note that the way you were formatting and uploading them was the cause for confusion about their copyright status. There was no intent to focus on you. You've been around long enough to see other editors, particularly newbies, do what you appeared to be doing: uploading particular photos on articles that might be copyrighted because you like them better than the free one. That happens a good bit, which is why I started looking at your file uploads. The images may be okay, but to prevent going through this hassle when you appear to be clearly doing everything right in checking the copyright, is to provide more information to uninformed editors (like myself) so that we can look and move on, without troubling you.

One last note: our articles can use more than one free piece of media in them, and your removal of it was impolite and hurt the article on Budd Schulberg. Instead of taking down media, simply move it to another part of the article. Schulberg's article can use more than just one image, and it's also useful for readers to see him at various stages of his life. Because I have photographed a good deal of people, I tend to see image issues more than other people do. If you license and format your uploads properly, and you only remove absolutely terrible images that have no place on the article once we receive better ones, I think you'll avoid issues like you recently experienced with me. Thanks again for the explanation. -->David Shankbone 13:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll try to avoid the problems with future uploads. BTW, there was no intent to to be "impolite" by my restoring Schulberg's image. It was replaced in response to its removal explantion, "(Revert - you may not take a free image and replace it with a copyrighted image)", where the restoration summary stated that it was actually PD. The other image is fine, obviously, and the changes were only focused on the lead image. Feel free to warn me about any future edit or upload issues and I'll try to fix them. --Wikiwatcher1

(talk) 17:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wikiwatcher1. Your question is a very subjective one, as both "German-born American writer" and "German-American writer" are bound to be interpreted differently by different people. Personally, I believe that the latter example suggests dual citizenship, which may not always be the case, whereas the former example only suggests that while the individual was born in Germany, they hold/held American citizenship and consider(ed) him/herself to be American. Joseph Conrad, for example, is described (correctly, I think) as a "Polish-born British novelist". He wrote all of his most important works in the English language, became famous while living in England, and he eventually attained British citizenship. But, again, others may see it differently. As far as the WP:MOSBIO goes, nationality (in an article's lead) typically refers to "the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable." If the hypothetical German-born American writer you speak of left Germany at such a young age, I would argue that he is in fact more American than German, which would again make me choose the first option rather than the second. I hope this helps, María (habla conmigo) 20:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the opinion. Your explanation is logical and conforms with other material I've come across and goes into more detail this than the WP:MOSBIO for "Opening paragraph." I've had unresolved discussions with others on this issue where the ambiguity of the question is not very well explained by the MOS. Any chance you could add this explanation to the MOS section? I think it would add some consistency to the question and allow others to respond, if they agree or don't agree, to the talk page there. In any case, thanks for thinking this through with such precision! --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted your section heading, so your ideas would blend into the larger conversation which prompted your response.

My intention was to allow more people to read and comment on what you have to say.

Thought I should explain, since this topic has gotten people heated and led to misunderstandings.

Thanks for making me think and rethink.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain this edit. Wikipedian's differ on their views over cites in the lead, but I've yet to find anyone suggesting citations to scientific journals in body text are "a barrier to understanding" for "average readers". Nor that "external links" is a substitute for top-quality references. External links are for resources that weren't used as sources in the article, not ones that we think might be too advanced for the reader. As I mentioned on the talk page, the text (lead and body) on these four/five strains was unsourced. Someone then added the journal cite. You removed it. So the text is now unsourced again. Colin°^Talk 20:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The brief comments in Wikipedia:Lead#Citations recommends that the lead should be a general summary and may include redundant cites for controversial topics. IMO, this is an article about the Swine flu pandemic, and has numerous links to more detailed virology topics. I do realize that some MDs (hopefully not mine,) use Wikipedia for reference, and I think it's reasonable to assume that the average reader is not a doctor. Hence adding an unnecessary cite in the lead with a link to a scientific journal aimed at virologists is not conducive to readability. In any case, the topic should be covered in the body section first ("Virus characteristics") with cites there and a summary in the lead. That's only my opinion however, and I wrote almost all of the Jonas Salk article, yet still feel we need to be careful about potential barriers for average readers. If you're wondering who I think the "average" reader might be, it's the same person you might see in any doctor's office or emergency room. The one who will pick up People magazine, Cosmopolitan, or National Geographic. You don't normally see the New England Journal of Medicine in the magazine rack. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a very dangerous path to go down, suggesting that our sources need to be as lay-friendly as our articles. I'm a strong advocate of ensuring our medical articles are fully lay friendly, but also that they are reliably sourced. Sometimes, editors add to the citation a "lay summary" alternative to an academic article, which is good. Colin°^Talk 15:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]