User talk:Steve Quinn/Archive 3

Journal stuff

Hi Steve, thanks for creating those journal articles! I actually did not see that the editor on the society page was different. I usually take my cues from publisher's pages, in case of discrepancies, because they tend to be better up to date than society pages, which are often updated by volunteers. In this case, the society is right and the publisher is wrong: I just checked the "publication information" in the table of contents: issue 1 of 2010 gives Ponchak, but the latest issue gives Tsuang. Apparently the change was just made. I'll revert my change in the article. As for the abbreviation, we do not use that field for simple acronyms, but for ISO abbreviations, which are international. I had no time to look up the one for this journal, so I just removed the acronym. Hope this explains. Happy editing! --Crusio (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for not getting upset with me for simply removing your comments. They certainly were in good faith, and I know it isn't the best etiquette to remove someone else's comments. Sorry about that. Glad it is all sorted out. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Childhood's End

Dear Steve, I was puzzled and distressed at the revisions you made to Childhood's End on 27 April last. It seems to me they are obviously inconsistent with the text, which I have read countless times since 1955, when I was 13. One possible explanation occurs to me, and that is that you may be working from the revised introduction, published after the end of the Cold War, ca 1989. (I purchased a hard cover copy of the 1953 edition a few years back.) Clarke did like to revisit and revise his earlier work extensively, publishing outtakes from 2001, etc. I thought the revised introduction to CE was markedly inferior to the original, but of course that is a matter of taste, and I am not sure how to reconcile two conflicting visions in a non-POV way. (The two have been published together in some more recent editions, to allow the reader to pick his choice, so both have some status.) My own gut feeling has been that Clarke wanted to bring his text up to date with history, with what actually happened (possibly for commercial reasons, always a consideration), so it would not seem weirdly anachronistic in the post-1980's world. I, on the other hand, vividly remember the terror of those middle years in the 1950's, when islands started disappearing in the Pacific. I was 12 a few days before the March 1, 1954 Castle Bravo test, which few remember now, but which created a huge sensation in the press at the time as people imagined it transported to the great cities around the world.

Anyhow, we have to find some way to reconcile this, and rather than start a fight on the talk page, I thought I should consult with you here. I see that you are an experienced editor (and that we both have some particle physics background), but probably much younger than me. I have also left a message for John Sherwood, an old journalist friend (and friend of Clarke's) I've known for 15 years or so on the ACCIFC internet discussion group, and who has edited here lately.

I think we cannot let your edits remain untouched for long, as I really think they are violently at odds with the "original intent" (? never dreamed I would be taking Scalia's side....) of the author and misleading enough to be almost embarrassing for Wikipedia's reputation, but it probably does make sense to give a more balanced treatment to the two versions. Meanwhile, I will be collecting quotes from the 1953 text to support my claims, which will take a while I guess.

All the best, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Will, I have noticed before that you are a reasonable person, and you are exhibiting such reasonable behavior here. First, I am surprised that my edits have caused such a strong reaction. If you don't mind me saying so - WoW!

What I mean by this is my edits were very few, and the objective of my edits were to merely avoid, or remove WP:OR as a result of WP:SYN. My veiw was that if a source didn't say it or write it, then most likely it should not be in the article. Otherwise, it is an interpretation of the editor of the Wikipedia article, which amounts to WP:SYN.

Second, I have no wish to promote inaccuracies, so please feel free to make any necessary corrections that you feel are warranted, right away. I would rather be wrong, and the article be accurate. And I have only one question - are you sure that you are talking about my edits? I may be wrong, but it seems to me, that I made such a small number of edits as to have hardly any effect on the article. Unfortunately, I am in the dark right now, to which of my edits you are refering.

Third, I have every confidence that your edits will be correct and accurate, so I am sure I will stand aside and not get too involved. I may discuss your edits with you, but I am not going to engage in an edit war. Also, as I mentioned on the article's talk page - I don't see a problem with using your edition of the text as a reference for the plot summary of this article. I thought I was clear about that on the article talk page. I meant go ahead and use page numbers from the book itself for the plot summary if you wish, or however you intend to use the book itself. Also I think John Sherwood, would be a valuable editor to have on board with this. Especially since he was friend of the late Arthur C. Clarke.

As an aside, I am sure "the revised introduction to Childhood's End was markedly inferior to the original" as you say. It may not be just a matter of taste, but the real deal. ----Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Very strange. I now recall our previous conversation on talk, which was reasonable. I saw no problem with your edits at that time, but can hardly believe I did not read them. Today I did a compare just on your 4/27 changes, and was startled. I must have missed doing that previously. Am I correct that you have been working from the revised introduction? I must really be losing it! Anyhow, I am going to go through my old edition of the original CE, and document my issues with the the current text. I'll try to run that by you, and by the talk page, but I will probably make changes pretty quick, but we can negotiate the differences. Thanks! Cheers, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, So I believe now that you never saw the old version. The editions immediately after 1990 had only the new version, then later both. I think we have to put in two subsections at the beginning of the plot summary, outlining the two variations. You might want to keep an eye on this process, but I think things are no longer in crisis. I'll try to take a stab at patching it up over the weekend, though I have to get part of a proposal out in the next day or two. Thanks! Bill Wwheaton (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Will, when I did those edits my thinking was to be as literal as possible regarding the book and not be involved in any kind of personal interpretation or meaning derived from the text - unless there is an outside source, such as a magazine or news article, that expresses that interpretation. This type of editing is in agreement with Wikipedia's syle of editing, guidelines, and policies. For example, my first edit involves the following original statement in the article, which I changed: "dealing with the role of Mind in the cosmos and the plausible implications of that role for the..." There is no role of "Mind" in the book. Moreover, what is "Mind" ? In the story, there is something called the "Overmind" that is directing the "Overlords". When we start getting into "the role of the Mind" we are getting into philosophical synthesis. Instead it is better to state this or that about Overlords or Overmind, because that is what is in the story.

Furthermore, during the same edit the article now reads "Childhood's End narrates a transformation of humanity. Nationalism, racial prejudice and cruelty to animals are outlawed. A utopian society eventually develops, but this is not the climax." This is a more literal and simpler version of what is in the book. Instead of saying it touches on certian matters, why not simply be in agreement with the book and write, "Nationalism, racial prejudice and cruelty to animals are outlawed. A utopian society eventually develops...

Hopefully, you see what I am getting at. ------Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 07:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, edit the article as you see fit. I think you have more background knowledge on this book than I do. And if you don't like some of my other edits please feel free to say so. I don't mind being corrected when I am in error. ----Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. I just haven't had time to think much about it. Your point above was why I asked that question about an author's own work of fiction being a valid source for itself. I believe I can find good quotes from CE for some of what you reverted, but it is going to take some work. For example, it is clear from the text that the Overmind is an amalgamation of ancient civilizations, and that it has purpose. And it is called the Overmind, after all. There is also an explicit discussion of the nature of consciousness; though it is sketchy and incomplete of course (since it is not clear anyone on Earth understands it very well). But anyhow, I have to do it, dig out those supporting passages that I think are mostly there first, and then I will confer with you and on the talk page. But this work in the text involves some selection of course, cherry-picking maybe, and might be called OR. I feel it should really no worse than doing "research" in outside works, as long as the paraphrasing is accurate and the interpretation clearly does not stretch the point. That is where I have to be careful, as I do have strong feelings about the core significance of CE. I hope my "OR" will be found acceptable to other editors. Anyhow, we'll see how that turns out. Thanks for keeping WP (& me) honest, anyhow. The summary was much worse a year two ago I think, and certainly needed further detailed supporting references to the text, I've just been poky in providing them. Also, I'm not absolutely certain that all the material I think I remember has been retained in the later editions, I hope I don't have to struggle with differences in that. Bill Wwheaton (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Near field and far field

You did a really good editing job on this article. Thanks for following up after my addition to the introduction. Your edits have made this a much improved article. I was not expecting these results when I "generalized" the introduction. ----Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 02:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you're happy with it. It does look good, though I'm still not sure I'm happy with what happens in the "non-reactive near-field" because I'm not sure I fully understand it myself (Jackson, which I've been consulting, is somewhat short on antenna theory). The problem is energy conservation. It's one thing to say that the energy trapped in the non-reactive near-field zone doesn't radiate, nor does it return to the antenna (being so far away as to be badly out of phase in the emfs it produces), but then where does it go? It has to go someplace. I would suggest it also goes back to the antenna, so that that no power is drawn by the antenna circuit at all. I have in a mind a pure inductor at low frequency which essentially has no far-field. So what do we have? The near-field is the changing induction field, and if it crosses no conductors, the net effect of it is to produce a nearly 180 degree out of phase reactance that acts as a huge impedance to the input signal. Currents and voltages are completely out of phase (and would be totally so in the limit of no resistance) and so no power is drawn by the circuit at all. So current sloshes back and forth, but since no power is drawn, any energy in the H field that exists, is completely returned on each cycle to the antenna, and that includes the supposedly "non-reactive" part of it also, no? There are non-radiative static terms that extend far into the non-reactive part of the near-field. But if they're no-radiative they must be at least self-reactive.

By the way, I'm also a fan of Clarke and thought of Childhood's End as one book in whole genre of "Singularity" type pictures where mankind "transcends" into a state which can't be understood from our end. It is a hyperintelligent godlike state, often involving an all-encompassing group-mind. Naturally it involves the destruction of the host planet. The other common fate of planets that have transcended is that they're left empty. Have you read any Vernor Vinge, specifically A Fire Upon the Deep? His "Cricketsong under the High Willow" critters who have made a fanatical study of transcendance because they themselves cannot transcend, are very much modeled after the Overlords. SBHarris 02:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No I have not read that book. I just, now, read some of the summary and analysis in the Wikipedia article, and it looks like it has a lot of complex structure to both the narrative and plot. In other words, it looks like a really good book, and hope I get the chance to read it some time.

It is also interesting to have a species of "critters" who themselves are unable to transcend, yet who are fanatical about it. It appears to be in contrast to "Childhood's End". In that story, one could say the Overlords in Childhood's End are finding purpose in helping other species who are capable of transcending. The Overlords are being of service in contrast to being fanatic and obsessed. Hence, it is an interesting plot twist, which shows the other directions that an idea or motive can go. Hopefully, that makes sense ----Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 03:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I highly recommend A Fire on the Deep. As an exploration of distributed intelligence, it has no equal. Of course, our own intelligence is distributed, too, as there is some scale within anybody's brain where the individual components are far dumber than the whole. But that insight can be extended in both space and time to huge extents, and Vinge explores this all though this fascinating space-opera. 15:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Various metamaterial articles

I've already discussed a couple of these topics on individual pages with you from two different IP addresses, including comments on nonlinear, negative index, etc pages. I decided to help out more with these rather than just list suggestions on individual pages, so I've created an account to track my edits/collaborate. I plan on implementing some structural changes with the various metamaterial articles, some of which have been discussed. Just a heads-up. RFenginerd (talk) 05:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Classical_mechanics_task_force

Talk:Classical_mechanics#Classical_mechanics_task_force

Orphaned non-free image File:Platinum Metals Review cover image.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Platinum Metals Review cover image.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Image Screening Bot (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Mathematical Programming

Good job on that article - it looks great now. - TB (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment----Steve Quinn (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Parameter 1

Due to a bug of KingbotK plugin WP:PLUGIN++ of WP:AWB, if the 1 parameter is missing from WPBS, AWB may freeze and this will cause problems to AWB bots. Please, add |1= instead of removing it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yobot

Hi Steve, I see you just reverted an edit by Yobot. This is a bot, not a human being... As far as I know, bots are only used to perform some common maintenance tasks. As far as I can see, the edit that you reverted did not change the layout of the talk page. So I guess that WPBS and WPJournals (which I myself always use) actually are redirects to the things Yobot put in their place. In any case, don't get irritated by the dumb thing, because sooner or later it'll get back to that page and perform the same edit again... Its operator is User:Magioladitis, so you should perhaps contact him directly about these edits. Cheers! --Crusio (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oops, just see on the bot's talk page that you're aware of it being a bot and that there is ;ore going on than I thought. Ignore my comments, sorry! --Crusio (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. There is a discussion about this type of editing going on. You are right I was getting irritated. It is the user's responsiblity for the bot. The edits are trivial and serve no purpose. The user had the nerve to undo my edits when I was going to leave the other edits as they are. That is what got me going and irritated. Anyway, thanks for this message. I have calmed down.----Steve Quinn (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Steve - I fully agree that these edits should not be done on their own, but they are slightly useful in that they reduce the number of total transclusions on the page (and make it easier to read in wikitext form)... in this regard, as they are already committed, undoing them is actually inappropriate as well. Note also that when the |1= is removed from the shell, it can cause certain bots to choke and die (some kind of regex issue, don't ask me. I think there is a leprecaun involved somewhere). So, while I hope that Magioladitis will discontinue these edits (I will be sending him my "shelling" code [ looks for active talk pages without shells ]; to use in testing AWB instead), I would also appreciated it if we could leave them as is. Cheers, –xeno^talk 23:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Dear Steve, I apologise for irritating you. Maybe my answers were not exactly what you were expecting to hear after watching your watchlist to full from Yobot's edits. As I said I won't do any trivial edits in the future but please, please don't revert these edits. I lost hours of my life because AWB was stuck due to the lack of |1=. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Magioladitis (talk) has extended an olive branch of peace.

---

I can confirm that this one is a huge PITA. It will freeze the bot, causing you to have to babysit it (or come back hours later and see it's frozen itself at the B's). –xeno^talk 23:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks. I will leave all edits as they are, especially since parameter 1 ia an issue. Thanks for your comments. And thanks for the apology. Also, please note parameter 1 does not seem to work well with WPBS, unless I am doing something wrong. Anyway, it appears some issues are resolved. I will read the (edit conflict) page. Ciao ----Steve Quinn (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you give me an example where 1= isn't working? –xeno^talk 12:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, I just tested it over at Web of Science. The problem was if I use a parameter one without the "equals character" it leaves a gap, and that is what I was doing. I didn't realize the "equals character" is neccessary. So this is the correct format - WPBS|1= . If I had known this I would probably would have been adding the parameter 1 a long time ago, even if I had no idea what it was for. I just noticed it on other talk pages. So, now, in the future I can place WPBS|1= instead of just WPBS|. Hopefully, this makes sense. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the "1=" is an explicit call to the "first unnamed parameter" - {{Foo|bar}} is equivalent to {{Foo|1=bar}}. –xeno^talk 19:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Quarterly and semiannually

Hi Steve: For "semiannually" I prefer "biannually", because we have a Category:Biannual journals. I don't think either of these words should be wikilinked, according to WP:OVERLINK. Now that I am reading that, I realize that I probably should stop linking the country name in the infobox (and often also in the text). Cheers, --Crusio (talk) 08:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, bianually makes sense mostly because we do have such a category. I see what you are sayinhg about overlinking. These are common words. Is it acceptable to change 12 times per year to monthly, even though a journal and maybe other sources say 12 times per year? What do you think about this? ----Steve Quinn (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• I only use figures for frequencies that have no easy words, like 8 or 10 times per year. For the rest, I use biannually, monthly, biweekly, etc. In my book, 12/year is the same as monthly and I feel that the latter is nicer. I don't know of any journals that publish 12 issues in a highly irregular rhythm (like, 8 issues in the first 6 months and then 4 in the last 6 months). They usually even date them Jan/Feb/etc. --Crusio (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Time number one

I am so glad someone else finally showed up at the Time article --JimWae (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I guess that was you that wrote an excellent lead for this article. I would like to keep that one. However, as you pointed out - the first sentence is not even really needed. I can revert this last edit and then another editor will have to step in because of the three revert rule. However, this may not apply with matierial that is WP:OR ----Steve Quinn (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, the lead is just fine right now. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the good words. I have now made 1 (perhaps 2, if being very strict) reverts today. Steve has had his 3.--JimWae (talk) 04:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Query on User_talk:Materialscientist

Hello, Steve Quinn. You have new messages at Materialscientist's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talk:Punishment#Comments

-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 20:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

CC

Hi Steve, I don't mind much either way about a dash or a slash, but ISI have always used a slash themselves (http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/science_products/a-z/current_contents). Cheers! --Crusio (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Although I prefer the dash it is probably best to stick with the slash. In this way I am following an established convention. Also, by using the dash it could be argued that this is WP:OR in some (very) small way. Even though it is not a whole article, paragraph, or unpublished idea, the principle is still the same. Do you see it this way, too? ----Steve Quinn (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I wouldn't call it OR, but it could be argued, I guess, that the slash is part of the original title (like we do with "and" or "&" for some journal titles). --Crusio (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Punishment#Disassembly

A fresh critique for you Steve. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 03:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I will be over as soon as I can. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 03:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Responded. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 21:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Again. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 21:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Again.. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Again... -Stevertigo (t | log | |c) 04:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Responded. -Stevertigo (t | log | |c) 18:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Responded. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 00:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:David Lehman photo 1996.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:David Lehman photo 1996.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 or which could be adequately covered with text alone. 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. —fetch·comms 03:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Most cited articles

Hi Steve, I see you took away the citation numbers from the most cited section. I think that's a good idea, because WoS gets updated once a week, so in principle, this could change weekly... Also, I think 10 is perhaps a bit much. last year (I think) DGG suggested to me adding this to journal articles (back when I was creating the article on my pet journal, Genes, Brain and Behavior, but I think he suggested just to give the top 3. And as you can see there, I just stated "cited more than xxx times", with xxx being the number of cites of the third article, because this will not become outdated too fast. The 3 most cited articles is a more stable collection than the most cited 10, a few more cites here or there and you'd have to update the article again and we have enough to do without much additional maintenance... :-) Anyway, just my 5 cents, if you'd like to stick to 10 (after all, it was quite an effort to look all that up), that's fine with me, too. Happy Editing! --Crusio (talk) 08:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Cat moves by bot

Hi Steve, the bot waits 7 days to see if any one objects... :-) Happy editing! --Crusio (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Black hole naming controversies

Hello Steve Quinn. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Black hole naming controversies, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: this may not be notable, but it is not "a page that serves no purpose but to disparage or threaten its subject or some other entity". If you don't like it, take it to AfD. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 08:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It obviously disparges black women and women in general. I requested speedy deletion as an attack page because that is what it appears to be to me, besides being inflammatory. Using the sources like that is just a tool to attack others IMHO. Also, the title is obviously misleading - it is not about Black Holes at all, or naming black holes. Again the article is just a venue to stir things up. Also there is another term that is disparging toward jews. In any case, I will get other administrators to look at this. I think you are definitely wrong, and I am thinking I should revert your edit. This page should not have lasted this long. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 09:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, another admin has deleted it as "idiotic", I guess invoking WP:IAR. That's up to him; it was a silly page, but it did not fit the definition of WP:CSD#G10. JohnCD (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

John, you don't see the remarks on that page as disparging toward jews, and black women? There was no "threat" as per #G10, but there were disparging remarks. Dispargment fits the criteria does it not? Or am I missing something? If I am then please tell me how I am misinterpreting this? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 09:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your response. I am sure as an administrator your experience is guiding you. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

My bio

Hi Steve, I see that you have also found the bio that some newbie user copied from my user space. I guess I am to blame myself, should have deleted that a long time ago. I managed to get a bio on me deleted last year, but this time that won't fly, I fear, so I'm not even going to try. I just hope that people like you will keep it on their watchlist, because from time to time people that get upset with ones editing here will attack such a bio (happens from time to time to David Eppstein or to Pete Hurd, there are many more, I guess). I'll refrain from editing it (except for obvious vandalism), to steer free from any COI. I have a small remark on the Wikiprojects for which you added tags: my work is not really directly related to medicine (not more so than the "average neuroscientist") and certainly not to Neurology. It does fall within WP Neuroscience, I guess, and perhaps WP Psychiatry (but only marginally). If you agree with this, perhaps you could change that. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 11:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I was intending to keep this article on my watchlist, so there is no problem with that (to watch out for vandalsim). Of course it did not occur to me that such biographies get attacked, but now I am aware of it. Ciao ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

OK I changed the tags. I also added WP Philosphy with the science task force. Also, a member of WP Biography adusted the WP Biography banner for the affirmative in BLP. This is instead of two seperate banners (BLP) and (WP Biography). If you view the diffs from the edit history you can see what I am talking about. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks! --Crusio (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Punishment

Your lede to the punishment article still makes no mention of the idea of consequence or consequentialism. Quite strange. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 07:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC) PS: It's strange because it mentions "cause" as in causality, but not "consequence." -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 19:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I will come over and take a look at it. It sounds like you may have a point, even though I haven't re-read the lede yet. I have a few things to do at the moment. I will discuss this on the Punishment talk page with you later. Ciao. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI

I have opened a case at ANI about LarkinToad2010 in which you are mentioned: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:LarkinToad2010. --Crusio (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Larkin 25

Please stop editing the article I am about to merge in the 'Larkin with Toads' article. Please check your edits in about ten minutes time. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm done now, I think the copy that I pulled out to work on was just after your 09:14 (Other cultural trails and educational activities) edit. Note that Pablo is also editing at the same time. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Roundness (Geology)

I removed the prod you placed on Roundness (Geology) (since moved to Roundness (geology); note caps) as the article creator made a request for help with translation of the Russian Wikipedia article into English. I have placed a tag on the article requesting such help from the translation experts. Feel free to list at AfD if this is not done in a reasonable amount of time. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a perfectly good explanation for all of this. Give me a few minutes to formulate a complete response (on my talk page). —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Your comment here [1] needs to be moved down - out of the gallery, and preferably at the bottom of the comments. –xeno^talk 21:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This was supposed to be for File:GermanPoliceTormentingJew.JPG. Can you please fix this? I am unable to place my "Keep" in the right place. Thanks. 22:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Have done. –xeno^talk 22:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

signing posts

I do sign posts by four ~, yes I have forgotten it few times. Is there a way where the signature is inserted automatically? -Abhishikt 08:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishikt (talk • contribs)

Talkback

Hello, Steve Quinn. You have new messages at Stevertigo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Steve Quinn. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_sanctions.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Stevertigo and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Stevertigo (t | log | c) 00:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Geophysics category

Steve, I have added some geophysics journals and it might be worth reinstating the Geophysics Journals category. See List of scientific journals in earth and atmospheric sciences#Geophysics. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't have a problem with that. OK, wow, there is a good number of Geophysics journals. I'll re-create this category right away. Thanks. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

OK done. Category - recreated. I am entering some journals now. Do you think the Geophysics category should be a sub category of (Category:Earth and atmospheric sciences journals) also? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. Thanks for doing this! RockMagnetist (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled by your inclusion of Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research in this category. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I would have to look at it closer, but just looking at the title and brief description I would think that geophysics involved. However, feel free to remove any journal that you think does not fit the category at this time. I can look at those that are removed more closely later, and confer with you on it. How does this sound? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

During a very quick look at the journal's homepage - here, I notice the fourth statement in the Aims & Scope says: "Geophysical aspects of volcanic systems: physical properties of volcanic rocks and magmas; heat flow studies; volcano seismology, geodesy and remote sensing" ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

True. That's good enough for me! RockMagnetist (talk) 02:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, may I but in here? I have modified somewhat the categories to which this new cat belongs. I hope I am correct in assuming that geophysics is the overlap between Geology and Physics. So I have re-categorized this cat as Geology journals and as Physics journals. That makes the other cats redundant (ofr instance, Geology journals is a subcat of Earth and atmosphere science journals). Let me know if you think I'm wrong. --Crusio (talk) 04:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Crusio, I refer you to RockMagnetist, for that answer. For some reason that is one category that I am not familiar with. So, I am trying to get a handle on it, myself. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is, yes, it is an overlap between phyics journals and geology journals. It is the other category that I am not familiar with. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• This can be a tough call. Generally I would say that if it is geophysics you can remove the physics cat, but geophysics is not really a subset of geology. It overlaps with a lot of other earth sciences like oceanography and atmospheric science (check out Geophysics). Sometimes it might be wise to keep the geology qualifier in there. --RockMagnetist (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Is it OK to keep the discussion here for the moment? I have removed the categories Physics or Geology journals from the journals in the Geophysics journals cat, but several are still in this cat as well as the higher cat Earth and atmospheric sciences journals. Only one of the two should remain. A journal that is mainly in Geophysics should be in that cat, a more general journal in the other (we don't categorize Nature in, say, Optics journals, even though they sometimes publish that kind of articles). Could either you or RockMagnetist look ito this? Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 05:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Sure, might as well keep the discussion going on here. At the moment I am stuck on Scripta Geologica. I was going to say that it probably needs to go to AfD, but I am going to simply propose it for deletion (PROD) as lacking notability. Crusio, maybe you could take a look at its "Journal homepage", and other pages and see if you agree. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• The journals that I have listed in List of scientific journals in earth and atmospheric sciences#Geophysics are primarily geophysics, and you could remove the Physics and Geology cats. For something like Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, you need to keep Geology or appropriate subcats. I have no opinion on Scripta Geologica. --RockMagnetist (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• That's not how categories work. If Geophysical journals is a subcat of Geology journals, which is a subcat of Earth and atmospheric sciences, then you categorize a journal as low on the scale as possible. If the JoVaGR has general Geology stuff in addition to some Geophysics stuff, it should be in the Geology cat, not Geophysics. If it would also have some oceanography in it (undersea volcanoes, perhaps?), then it should go to Earth and atmospheric sciences. If this doesn't work, then we should re-think the categorization tree (you can inspect the tree easiest at Category:Academic journals by subject area. As for Scripta, I think we should keep it. I'll edit the article in a moment and add some stuff (helps to be able to read Dutch :-) and then have a look, Steve, if you want to keep the prod tag or take it to AfD. --Crusio (talk) 07:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Guess I wasn't awake yet when I wrote the above (didn't yet have my coffee... :-), their web page is actually in English and everything was already in the article. I have tidied a bit, and I think it just scrapes by the journals guideline, thanks to the databases that it is in, even though none of them is really major. In addition, it has a long history (I don't think separate articles on the previous titles are warranted, we should just regard this as one journal, even though it looks like from 1971 till 1985 they were published in parallel). --Crusio (talk) 08:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Also it appears that catagorizing a journal in cat: geophysics journals and cat: ocenaography journals at the same time is appropriate. For example, see Paleoceanography (journal) ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Geophysics is much too broad to be a subcat of Geology. Consider the sections of Journal of Geophysical Research. I have put it back in cat:Earth and atmospheric sciences journals. RockMagnetist (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• As for Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, I think it is primarily a Geology magazine. If you add it to the Geophysics category, then what about Geochemistry and Hydrology? RockMagnetist (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• I wouldn't know. The problem with cats is that if you make them too narrow, people are going to misunderstand and pretty soon things will be an absolute mess. I'm not a geologist/geophysicist, but I am a scientist and if I am having trouble seeing how this works, then others are going to have the same or worse problems. As you have categorized it now, "Geophysics" is at the same level as "Geology": a subcat of Earth and atmospheric science. If Geophysics finds itself where geology and physics overlap, then that is not logical. If Geophysics is a sister discipline of geology, rather than a subdiscipline, then this is perfect.

I agree with your overall approach to the problem, with the caveat - make the category as small as possible but not smaller! (Apologies to Einstein.) Geophysics is a sister discipline of geology, not a subdiscipline. I wish I shared your optimism about things falling into place. Geophysics overlaps with just about every other earth sciences discipline and the boundaries between disciplines are very fluid. One possible guide to organization is the template Template:Earth science - do you think it might help to put this at the bottom of the category? --RockMagnetist (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Before deciding about individual journals, it's probably best to first decide about a clear categorization structure. Once that's clear, the journals will automatically fall into their places. Note that sometimes categories have to be a bit broad, because it is not much use having cats that have only a few members. Anyway, this is clearly your field, so all I'm trying to do here is explain the principles of categorization used on WP. :-) It is perhaps good to add a short statement at the top of these categories pointing to the main articles Geology and Geophysics to give other editors some idea of what this is about. --Crusio (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

According to what I am reading - Geophysics is a sub-discipline of Geology. I had a longer entry here, but do to editing conflict, I lost the text. This could probably be backed up with the Encyclopedia Britannica, because I am using Groiler online, and Americana . ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This is what I suspected. Also we don't have to accomplish all this in one day, so maybe we could slow down here. First, let's establish and agree that Geophysics is a subdiscipline of geology and physics. It also includes chemistry. The rub about geophysics is that it is an interdisciplinary science - if I remember correctly. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Instead of looking at a second-hand source for classification of geophysics, I recommend looking at [2] or the sections of Journal of Geophysical Research. --RockMagnetist (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree, but geophysics is a sub-discipline of geology, The major areas of geological study are: Geochronology, Geophysics, Mineralogy, Paleontology, and, under Rocks, —petrology. Large-scale structures and process (of earth) such as Continent, Earth, Earthquake, Fault, Glacier, Mountain, and Volcano, and there are numerous (earth) rocks and minerals. The history of the earth - geological eras, periods, epochs, and rock series, and history also includes Continent, Earth, Ice Ages, and Paleography. I also have more detailed categorization available. It will take a little more time to put together, if we need it. (I don't mind doing it). I may also have a book or two (accessible online) that can be consulted. Well, hopefully that is the case. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok with your link all you are establishing is the earth and space science is a subdiscipline of geophysics. Geophysics is still a sub-discipline of Geology. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The sources I am using are reliable sources. Eschew, or poo - poo, all you want. The only thing that matters is that the information is accurate, and reliable, which it is. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

What source are you using? If it is about geology, it may well list Geophysics as a sub-discipline. But that really only means that part of geophysics is a sub-discipline of Geology. You could easily look at the AGU website and come to the conclusion that Oceanography is a sub-discipline of Geophysics, but of course it is not. You need to look at the big picture. --RockMagnetist (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you may be able to access these - "Geology." Encyclopedia Americana. 2010. Grolier Online. 24 Sept. 2010 <http://ea.grolier.com/article?id=0173620-00>. (accessed September 24, 2010).

Also, at the moment I am looking at Groiler (Mulitmedia) Encyclopedia online - Matthews III, William H. "Geology." Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia. Grolier Online <http://gme.grolier.com/article?assetid=0118180-0> (accessed September 24, 2010).

Unfortunately, I gotta run. I don't have time to check out the following books to see if they are accessible online, at the moment. I haven't read them, but they are listed as further reading. (I should be back in about eight or nine hours - have fun!).

• Dean, Dennis R., James Hutton and the History of Geology (1992).
• Erickson, Jon, An Introduction to Fossils and Minerals: Clues to the Earth's Past, rev. ed. (2001) and Plate Tectonics: Unraveling the Mystery of the Earth, rev. ed. (2001).
• Levin, Harold L., The Earth through Time, 6th ed. (1998).
• Montgomery, Carla W., Fundamentals of Geology, 3rd ed. (1996).
• Skinner, Brian J., and Porter, Stephen C., Dynamic Earth, 4th ed. (2000).

Steve, you still need to step back a little and look at the big picture. An encyclopedia article on Geology may be written by one or more scientists (I hope), most likely geologists. Now is a geologist writing about geology really concerned with making a complete and accurate definition of geophysics? The people who are most qualified to speak on the subject are geophysicists, and groups like AGU and IUGG speak for them. And if the AGU says "Our research encompasses everything from the exploration of the planets, to studies of the structure and chemical composition of the Earth's deep interior, to understanding the Earth's atmosphere and the causes of climate change" [3], then that probably represents the consensus of a large group of geophysicists. I'm not even sure if those geologists writing the encyclopedia article would disagree with this statement. And if the Journal of Geophysical Research, one of the premier earth science journals, has sections titled

   * Atmospheres
   * Biogeosciences
   * Earth Surface
   * Oceans
   * Planets
   * Solid Earth
   * Space Physics

then are you going to tell them they are wrong to say that geophysics applies to all these subjects? Or are you saying that all of the Earth sciences are part of geology? --RockMagnetist (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have spent enough time on this, and I want to get back to what I was doing (which, as it happens, was revamping the Geophysics page). If the above arguments don't persuade you, then we should probably move the discussion to a broader forum like the Earth Sciences talk page. --RockMagnetist (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Hey guys, don't get too excited! It's only categories, it's really not like we're trying to define fields here. Categories only serve to help people navigate WP, nothing more or less. My own journal, Genes, Brain and Behavior, is in the field of behavioral neurogenetics (or neurobehavioral genetics, a some people call it). But there are very few journals that concentrate on that particular subfield, so there's no category "Behavioral neurogenetics journals". I've categorized it in "Genetics" and "Neuroscience" and as it also publishes a fair amount of genetics research applied to normal and abnormal human behavior, also in the categories Psychology journals and Psychiatry journals. Note that it is not a perfect fit in any of those cats, but still I did not create a category BNG journals, because that would only have one or two articles in it. It's a solution you may think about here. Do away with the Geophysics category and categorize the individual journals in Oceanography, Geology, physics, whatever is appropriate. A deep discussion about what constitutes Geophysics and what does not might be appropriate if we were talking here about main space articles on that field, but here we're just talking categories, not worth getting all fired up about. Just my 2 cents... --Crusio (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think people in the earth sciences generally don't worry too much about defining the field they are in. There's too much overlap between disciplines and the boundaries are constantly shifting. But I have a list of nine journals that are primarily geophysics (in fact, they all have some variation of geophysics in their name), so it deserves a category. I'd be happy if the categories stayed the way they are right now. --RockMagnetist (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

My experience is like Crusio's: my academic field of molecular biology is totally amorphous, and can equally be considered part of chemistry or biology or biophysics, and was originated by restless physicists. When I applied for a university job, I had application letters and CVs set up calling me whatever field had the opening--I ended up in a department of zoology, but most of what I taught there was microbiology. Journals work that way also. In arranging physical books in a library, unless the library is very rich, you can put them in only one place. The Library of Congress classification reflects what academic departments offered the courses in 1910 US universities, rather than anything based on logic or the nature of the subject. Since with physical books, this does affect people's convenience, they can fight rather strongly about it. We're not paper, and can simply list something in whatever categories make sense to any of us. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I like that about online encyclopedias. --RockMagnetist (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, I have to say the consensus supports RockMagnetist. I guess we can leave the geophysics categories as it currently is. In addition, per his experience in this field, it appears that this will not be a subcategory of (Geology journals). No problem. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• My rhetoric got a bit heated back there. Sorry about that. It's my career, so I'm emotionally involved in the issue. --RockMagnetist (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Jet Propulsion Laboratory Science Division

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

RFA

Hello, Steve Quinn. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Reply_to_Steve_Quinn.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Steve Quinn. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Reply to Steve Quinn 2.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-04/Time

I am willing to mediate this dispute, if all participants find me acceptable, and the dispute is still live. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Insektenborse

Oh dear. This journal is a problem. I put a comment on the talk page All I can say is hat by sorting this out you will have been a great help to taxonomic entomologists. Many thanks Notafly (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I replied on the article's talk page - I am having an unforseen problem gathering enough information for an article for the contemporary title as well. Please see talk page. Sorry. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Truth

What other articles do you, Steve, consider perfect and therefore untouchable? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 05:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you know the ANI is still open? Did you know there is still a discussion going on? Yes, it was still active within the last few hours. You might be interested in what they were discussing. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Why can't you just answer the question. BTW, it was my understanding that the ANI had been closed and archived. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 06:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that the ANI wasn't closed after all. Or it was revived. Whatever. Ive made a comment of my own at that page. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 06:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the current lede isn't bad. Note that JimWae and I tussled over that lede a long time ago - one of the first cases of WP:VAI I encountered - where he proposed a "there are many definitions" type intro and I proposed an "in accord with reality" intro. It seems to work, though its probably a bit busy. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 21:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I appreciate that. It occurred to me today that our issues at the time and punishment articles might have been less strained had you had a little more information - namely that I had run into JimWae before at the truth article and had some foreknowledge of how he writes and argues in defense of his work. Its largely just a matter of finding a compromise between intelligent proposals. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 05:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's not get into the time and punishment articles right now. I was only talking about the "Truth" article. I am pretty sure your interactions with Jim Wae before the time and punishment articles don't have anything to with me. And I really don't want to get into it. I respect Jim Wae's accomplihments, his editing skills, and the fact that he is willing to step-up and take a stand (or two or three). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree - Jim is a good editor. But he's not without his flaws, same as anyone. I understand his subjective approach and thus I also understand its limitations. Ive benefited from Jim's critiques at times when he offers them in good faith. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 07:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

J.E. Gordon link at Materials science

Hi Steve,

The other day I looked up J.E. Gordon and noticed that his article is tagged as an orphan. I didn't have much time to spare but thought I'd have a quick search to see if there were any obvious links I could introduce. I found one of his texts cited in the Bibliography of the Materials science article, so I found out how to add an author link and put one in. You undid my edit saying that the author link "may mis-direct to another article, rather than the actual author". Can I invite you to please have a look at the J.E. Gordon article, particularly J.E._Gordon#Works to satisfy yourself that it does refer to the author of the cited book, "The New Science of Strong Materials or Why You Don't Fall Through the Floor"? I think you'll agree that the link is to the right article, so can I ask you to put the link back in please?

Just trying to help out an orphan! All the best,

--213.104.249.48 (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• No problem. I don't remember the exact edit but I will sure look into it. I will leave a message for you on the article talk page, after looking into this, and fixing the link. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 17:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Larkin 25

Could you please take a moment to comment on the changes to the Larkin 25 page on the articles talk page. The Eskimo (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem - will do. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

stevertigo

Your evidence is great but houldn't it go on the evidence page rather than th talk page?Slrubenstein | Talk 21:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Kirill's response here, I think you make a goood point. It was in the back of mind, now it is in the front of my mind. Thanks. Also, I comiserate with you and the long line of editors that went before me. I came across yours, and other frustrated editors efforts in the "Holocaust denial" talk page, and the September 2009 ANI. I am also aware that this has been going on for years before that. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Time

I caution you that this could be construed as canvassing. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? This is not a controversial situation. This is just about editing an article, and trying to get some input from various editors. I figured since you have edited the article before (about three recent edits?) that you might be interested. I don't see this as canvasing. This is just editing. Thanks for the advice though. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope you can join the discussion, if you are interested. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:CANVAS - "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."

I also have a question. I certainly do not mind other people joining this discussion and editing this article. But I do not like long discussions (they take too much time) and prefer fixing problems at spot. If I see something problematic, I fix it. If you see something problematic in my edits, you fix it, but do not simply revert everything I did to a previous version. That's how this suppose to work. So far you reverted my edits twice in this article, justifying this mostly by the existence of a previous consensus (although I do not see it in discussion). May I edit this article without you reverting me, please? If not, I will edit something else. Thanks.. Biophys (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

First, it is because what you edited out did not make sense backed by specious claims. What you've shown is an inherent unfamiliarity with this topic, except, maybe, for one limited point of view. Second, the assertions you have made on the article's talk show me a combative mentality. Those assertions are also dismissive of the caliber of editors, and editing that have worked on this article. Third, you have yet to provide sources for your claims. Fourth, either you are not aware of WP:LEDE or you are ignoring it. Fifth, especially on this article, conferring with other editors, and establishing a consensus is vital, so someone attempting to shape this article to conform to their point of view is ineffective. Sixth, contrary to your newest assertion that there is no consensus - there is a consensus, and I am really not interested that you don't think so. Seventh, it is possible to run afoul of guidelines and policies from behavior on the article talk page. Eigth your comment above really belongs on the article's talk page, and I am inclined to move it there. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, your comment above is off topic. This thread is about "Canvassing" or not canvassing. You might be familiar with this. In any case, by placing your comment so it is off topic in this thread, and the fact that it belongs on the article talk page, also tells me something about your editing behaviors. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that was an unnecessary and confrontational question.Biophys (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo ArbCom case update

I just wanted to let you know that ArbCom has moved the case to the proposed decision stage. The proposed decision may be viewed here and may be commented about here. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Best, NW (Talk) 14:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Just noting that the outcome of the case is clear and it will close within the next day or so. Taking the time to add further evidence, at this point, is not really necessary. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I wasn't exactly sure what was going on. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

• Stevertigo (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for one year. If Stevertigo wishes to return to editing Wikipedia, he must first work with the Arbitration Committee to an establish a set of probation criteria. He may do this no earlier than six months after the closure of the case, and no more than every six months thereafter.
• Stevertigo is required to cite a published source for any material he adds to an article. Should he fail to do so, any editor may remove the material without prejudice. Should he cite a source that is subsequently determined not to support the material added, he may be blocked for a period of up to one week for each infraction.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

NW (Talk) 20:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Pleas help with "Roundness (Geology)"

This is in russian Wiki ru:Окатанность. --Heljqfy 07:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Цу туув ершы рукую Иге ьн утпдшыр шы мукн еуккшидую

• Stive, pleas, help me with translation of this Paper from Russian. I do not english, sorry! Thank you!--Heljqfy 18:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heljqfy (talk • contribs)