User talk:Betsythedevine/Archive 2009

Welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron!

	WELCOME	from a Article Rescue Squad member
	Welcome to Article Rescue Squadron Betsythedevine/Archive 2009, a dynamic list of articles needing to be rescued, which changes with new updates, can be found here: Articles tagged for deletion and rescue Category Articles tagged for deletion and rescue not found I look forward to working with you in the future. Ikip (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome bets, looks like we both worked on Joe the Plumber together [my older name was travb and inclusionist]. Hope to work with your again in the future. Ikip (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to ARS!

Hi, Betsythedevine, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles and content that have been nominated for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable, and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles and content to quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!

Some points that may be helpful:

• WikiProject Article rescue squadron's (ARS) main aim is to help improve Wikipedia articles and content. If someone seeks help, please try to assist if you are able. Likewise feel free to ask for help, advice and clarification.
• Sometimes we are asked to help rescue articles by people new to our notability and sourcing policies. If the article is not fixable we can help explain why and offer alternatives. Sometimes editors who are new to Wikipedia may perceive the deletion of "their" article as discouraging. Encourage civility and maybe even {{welcome}} them if they have only been templated with deletion messages.
• The Articles for deletion (AfD) discussion is where the concerns regarding each article are brought up and addressed. To be an effective member of the project you need to know how AfD works as well as how to improve articles. Introduction to deletion process gives a good overview and some good advice for newcomers to deletion.
• Our primary work is improving Wikipedia articles and content. A more dynamic list with article links and descriptions are located at our rescue list.
• If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to the list of translators available. Articles and sources that use non-English languages often need translation for those of us who cannot translate for ourselves.
• Many important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is recommended that you watchlist it.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.

And once again — Welcome! ~~~~

Photo opportunity

I was just browsing List of female Nobel laureates and noticed there's no picture of Linda B. Buck. I found one on flikr (here) but sadly it is marked "All rights reserved". If you are by any chance related to the copyright holder, is there any chance of cropping the image and releasing it for Wikipedia? Thanks! - Pointillist (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

How strange, most of my Flickr photos are released on a creative commons license, and I have uploaded many of them to Wikipedia. I just put this one into the commons, ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AaronCiechanoverLindaBuck.jpg ); feel free to crop out Linda Buck to use for her article. betsythedevine (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that, and for your very entertaining blog. - Pointillist (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Relationship to the public section in Dave Winer article

Please note that I posted two contributions to the article's talk page prior to making the section heading edit you reverted. I'd appreciate your comments on either of those contributions. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ARK (talk • contribs) 11:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, let's discuss this matter with any interested others at Dave Winer:Talk.betsythedevine (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. For a slightly different matter: the Podcasting section in Winer's bio is far too verbose and detailed, and some of the stuff in that section could well be moved to the Radio Userland page, which I've just primed for this. The Radio page has a template that complains about the intro being inadequate. This no longer applies. How do I remove that template? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ARK (talk • contribs) 12:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You can recognize templates by the little curly brackets around them. In that particular case, though, I took the template off for you. all best, betsythedevine (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I was looking for the wrong thing, apparently, got confused and suspected the template required some extra editing privileges to remove. Thanks for fixing it. ARK (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS on LOL

A quote from you on the talk page:

Neither of those seems to be available freely over the internet, but I have added a reference to one that is. I hope this addition will resolve this controversy.

I was just wondering if that was really a big concern? I do most of my research for Wikipedia (when applicable) in UW-Madison's library e-resources. The tool is for students and staff (and maybe almuni as well, but I don't remember) and allows us to access an incredibly extensive collection of scholarly writings that are normally only available to journal subscribers. Do you have a more public site that you use (other than Google Scholar) or do you think it would be okay to continue using my university's resources? Daniel J Simanek (talk) 05:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi -- first, let me thank you for suggesting Google Scholar, which I agree is an excellent source of information. Your mileage may vary, but I was unable to read online the portions of the two papers you cite that discuss the use of "ROFL". One paper cited a newspaper article with "ROFL" in the title, the other suggested I should pay $24 to read its full text. I preferred the source I added because one could actually read its full text online. I have often seen books cited here, however, which are by no means readable online. I merely thought that, given the wealth of citations in Google Scholar, it would make sense to pick one where others could satisfy themselves of the evidence being cited. betsythedevine (talk) 10:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, just trying to clarify! Thanks! Daniel J Simanek (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Troll (Internet)#Etymology

According to wikt:troll, to troll is:

1. (fishing) To entice fish with bait; to fish using a line and bait or lures trailed behind a boat.
2. (intransitive) By extension, to search (for), to draw out, to entice

According to wikt:trawl, to trawl is:

1. To take fish, or other marine animals, with a trawl.
2. To fish from a slow moving boat.
3. To make an exhaustive search for something within a defined area.

and a trawl is:

1. A long fishing line having many short lines bearing hooks attached to it; a setline.

Now even though troll and trawl may not always be synonymous but the fishing technique explained in:

trolling for suckers, itself derived from the fishing technique of slowly dragging bait through water

could certainly be described as trawling. Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran let it off your chest 15:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in. I find the debate fascinating, and very appropriate for the article's Talk page, both so other editors may weigh in, and so future editors will understand what was decided. Prior to writing this, I skimmed through the article's Talk page archive on etymology of the term, and could not find this issue raised; the issues previously raised seem to be a bizarre politicizing of etymology; I found that "notably strange". —Aladdin Sane (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is interesting and relevant to the article, so I will continute this discussion on the article talk page. As I see it, "trawling", whether or not it is a synonym for "trolling," (and I don't think it is [1][2]) need not be added to an article section about the etymology of "Internet troll." betsythedevine (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

→Talk:Troll (Internet)#.5BTroll (Internet)#Etymology: Trolling and Trawling

Talk:Troll (Internet)#.5BTroll (Internet)#Etymology: Trolling and Trawling

Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran let it off your chest has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:User:Download/Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Florence, Massachusetts

Hi Betsythedevine. Thanks for taking the initiative with the Florence, Massachusetts article. I was hoping someone else would pick up the ball and help sort it out a bit after my additions. Good improvement.

And yes, I concur that Munde doesn't belong in the opening sentence anymore. I originally placed him there on 7 December, when I came across the New York Times citation that he'd founded Florence. What I was really trying to find, was something dating Munde's water cure, given that Metcalfe's (1898) Life of Vincent Priessnitz credits Munde with the U.S.' first water cure. Then I came across Strimer's article on David Ruggles in Florence, Massachusetts, which led me to Charles Sheffeld's, History of Florence, and the quote about the meeting. This changed things. I tend to think of the 'founding' of a place as the establishment of a continous settlement, but Munde joined an existing community, and contributed to the naming of it, which is not really the same thing.

However, I was a bit jaded by this point, and trying to find a way to move back to the main articles I'm working on, while still doing some justice to the Florence article, and I was hoping someone else would pick up the ball. You did that, and good on you. I do think the article can be further fleshed out from the Sheffeld reference and others, but I leave that to someone else.

One thing that intrigued me was Ruggles involvement in water cure. I see Hodges (2000) attributes Ruggles with establishing the first U.S. water cure hospital, but this seems unlikely. From my readings, it looks like the credit for this goes Mary Gove, who teed up with Joel Shew and subsequently married him, with the dates for their establishment being circa 1843/1844. Shew was - as far as I can tell - also the first editor of the Water Cure Journal, followed by R.T. Trall, all of which fits with Gove/Shew's establishment preceding Trall's. But we still don't - or at least I don't - have a specific date for Ruggles establishment. It looks to me like circa 1844, and I begin to wonder if he encountered Shew or especially Gove.

In terms of the chronology of hydrotherapy/water cure as we have come to know it, the chronology for establishment in the U.S. appears to go something like this: R.T. Claridge kicks off the populist movement in the U.K. in 1842. Soon after, there are writings in the U.S. by people like Shew and Trall (who credit Claridge with popularising Priessnitz' methods), and then water cure houses, or establishments, start appearing in the U.S. Metcalfe's claim of Munde opening the first U.S. hydropathy establishment initially had possible credence, given his experience with Priessnitz circa 1836, and migration from Europe to the U.S.

But Munde never made the 'first' claim himself - or not that I'm aware of - and his own chronology made Metcalfe's claim hard to figure, made all the more difficult by competing claims re Shew and Trall, and lack of any acknowledgement by them of Munde. It was possible that hydropathy promoters didn't want any credit to go to a German immigrant, and just ignored him. But how could this be, if he was significant enough to be credited with founding Florence? Someone must mention him somewhere. And sure enough, they do, but after good old Ruggles. A neat turn of events indeed.

So there you go. There is much more to the Florence article than meets the eye, and both Ruggles and Florence's part in the water cure movement is a small piece of their own history, and of the history of the movement itself. Yet it is a significant piece of the jigsaw, without which other pieces don't quite fit.Wotnow (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Wotnow

A belated self-correction. Mary S. Gove didn't marry Joel Shew, she married Dr Thomas L. Nichols. I add this having had reason to review that which I've wrtten on Mary S. Gove. Not significant, but it can help any readers to know that it was an error, rather than cause confusion. Wotnow (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)