User talk:Itsmejudith/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

UN fact finding mission on the gaza conflict

hi judith - i would be happy if you could weigh in and give me your opinion about this - section #5 there. i am trying to get this info in, but not doing it right. appreciate any help. thanks Soosim (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations

My edit of "16:57, 13 February 2011" may have conflicted with your edit of "16:50, 13 February 2011", though I didn't get an edit-conflict message from the software.... AnonMoos (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Joe Baugher

The issue of whether or not Joe Baugher is a WP:RS has been raised again at WP:RSN#Joe Baugher. As you contributed to the original discussion at WP:RSN, now archived at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 21#Joe Baugher, I am informing you of the re-opening of this issue. You are welcome to comment in this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 09:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity

An arbitration case regarding Longevity has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are enacted for all articles related to Longevity (broadly interpreted);
2. Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Wikipedia process related to articles about longevity (broadly interpreted);
3. John J. Bulten (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year;
4. WikiProject World's Oldest People is urged to seek experienced Wikipedia editors who will act as mentors to the project and assist members in improving their editing and their understanding of Wikipedia policies and community norms;
5. Within seven days of the conclusion of this case, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages in their user space or request deletion of them using the {{db-author}} or {{db-self}} template.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 22:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The least surprising topic ban violation in the world ...

User_talk:David_in_DC#The_least_surprising_topic-ban_violation_in_the_history_of_the_world... Please review my enforcement request and, if so moved, comment. David in DC (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Another anti-Ryoung122 false accusation from David in DC. If anyone checked the edit summaries, I was working on city census population numbers. Census numbers by age aren't going to be available for some time, and certainly not for individual persons. Experts know that, but for some reason Wikipedia favors those who are blissfully ignorant of the topic being edited to be the one doing the editing. That is a problem.Ryoung122 22:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

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

thanks for your help in the shakespeare assighnment judith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trishalsezsmile (talk • contribs) 16:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Formating issue fix

Just FYI [1] Nil Einne (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration request about EmmanuelM

Judith, I wrote my answer to your arbitration here. Emmanuelm (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Your update to the AE

Hello Judith. Can you revise your submission so that it doesn't mention the real name of the the third person who you list? It's one thing to link to an off-wiki conversation, but we should not bring inferences about names onto Wikipedia itself. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For always having sensible comments on talk pages where we've met! CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Israel Apartheid Week

having a running disagreement with an editor about whether the specific dates for all years need to be listed or if it is sufficient to say that the event is held annually. can you look [at this] and let me know what you think? thanks. Soosim (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Stumbled across this

Hi IMJ, have you seen this - List of people with the longest marriages? Where might one go to get some community input on this page? I'm tempted to go straight to AfD. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think just a note on WP talk: WOP and then AfD. The AfD process will help get a precedent and more eyes. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I'm weary of bringing it up with the Wikiproject, and have a hard time figuring out what noticeboards are right this. These record keeping articles are often WP:OR IMO, and of course also pure trivia. Thanks for the input.Griswaldo (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

A rose by any other name

Hi Judith, I was reading your statement to ArbCom the other day and it said that the WOP WikiProject started off like an extension to the Yahoo Group. I was wondering if it might be a good idea to rename it WikiProject Longevity. This might help break it from its past and serve as a reminder this this is a Wikipedia group, and editors should abide by Wikipedia's rules. Of course, name changes are purely symbolic so it might not make a difference at all. I just wanted to run the idea past someone to see if there's any support for such a change. Technically, changing the group name to Longevity changes the scope of the group to include non-human species. If that's a legit concern, perhaps WikiProject Human Longevity might be better. Your thoughts? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Prefer WikiProject human longevity. I was looking through the guidelines for wikiprojects the other day and there is a lot of wisdom there that I was intending to come back to when I had more time. For instance, should it be a subproject of WikiProject Biography. Is there something on Demography it could go into? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding but your comment about it being a subproject of WikiProject Biography kind of threw me for a loop. Due to my unfamiliarity of this WikiProject, I was thinking that this was more of a science-related WikiProject. But if it's more biographical in nature, I'm not sure. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Tree shaping

There is a proposed Topic Ban for Blackash and Slowart on Tree shaping related articles at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents As you have had some involvement with these editors in question, you may wish to comment. Blackash have a chat 00:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Fringe Noticeboard

There have been some developments on the fringe noticeboard since your last comment. Further action is requested [2]Ebanony (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Parc Jean Jacques Rousseau

I left some comments on the talk page for Parc Jean-Jacques Rousseau. I am happy to work on this as my next French translation project but am really doubtful whether it is worth translating every word of this densely detailed article, as opposed to creating a shorter version. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I reduced this close to a stub, removed the translation tag and will be back from time to time to expand it. Another user who was struggling with it was about to nominate it for deletion, but I think this is a better solution. Please let me know what you think. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to drop by and say that lately I've been very happy when your name popped up in my watchlist. Your comments and edits are always well thought, reflective and thoroughly reasonable. Thanks for editing, you make this madhouse a better place, and inspire me to try and do the same.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

LaRouche

Re the RfC, I've trawled through Google Scholar and brought up some academic sources that call LaRouche an economist, in addition to the various media sources that were already listed. Have a look at them, and see if they change your mind, or not. I tried to avoid the ones that I know are LaRouche's own publications.

Let me add that I'm not a particular LaRouche fan. But if the man and his views have the ear of various foreign governments, notwithstanding his lousy standing in the US, then I believe we shouldn't minimise that, and give the reader the impression that he is nothing but an inconsequential local cult leader. Cheers, --JN466 18:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to trouble you again. I had resigned myself to the likely outcome of the RfC, and removed the economist label, but now see that LaRouche, under the pen name Lyn Marcus, authored a book, Dialectical economics : an introduction to Marxist political economy (1975) (entry at archive.org), published by D. C. Heath and Company (Lexington, Massachusetts), which was reviewed[3] in the American Economic Review, published by the American Economic Association.

The book has citations in Google Scholar and in Google Books.

To my mind, this changes things, and I feel less happy to let the matter drop. Surely, having your work reviewed in the American Economic Review, which according to our article on it is one of the most prestigious journals in the field, counts for something. Add to that the fact that he was considered quite an important economist by various Latin American governments, according to reliable sources, and I feel uncomfortable not calling him an economist. What's your view? --JN466 03:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Ernest Mandel is not described as "an economist" in the lead of his biography, but his writings on Marxist economics are more widely read than LaRouche's book. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Note that the AER snippet is from an ad in the back matter, rather than a review (User:Volunteer Marek checked it). --JN466 22:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

UEL

Good spot on the photos. - Sitush (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Inclusive fitness, evolutionary psychology and refutation: wither falsifiability?

hi Istmejudith. I'm trying to contribute a small, verifiable and important edit to the evolutionary psychology article, but it keeps being shot down by Leadwind. I have outlined my justification on the EP talk page, and a discussion is starting there. I would really appreciate it if you could add your opinion to the discussion. Many thanks Maximilianholland (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Please

Don't stay away too long - Jensenism and that which is worse is rapant throughout race related articles. Hope to see you back soon.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The Spirit Level (Book)

Judith, I wanted to ask you to take a look at the talk page for The Spirit Level. User OpenFuture was confused by your last comment so he reverted an edit I made. Appreciate it. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ivan Levaï

The article Ivan Levaï has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. joe decker^{talk to me} 04:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Swiss supercentenarians for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Swiss supercentenarians is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Swiss supercentenarians until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. David in DC (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

suggestion

Hello! I noticed you contributed to Middlesex University entry on Wikipedia. If you studied at that University, please consider including this userbox on your userpage. Simply paste {{User:Invest in knowledge/mdx}} to your userpage. Thank you. Invest in knowledge (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't, just looking from time to time at various UK uni articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

The source is practically entirely on the topic of pseudoscience.

Editors seem to have a personal disagreement with the mainstream source.

The serious matters that are a threat to public health are:

"The ‘Keep libel laws out of science’ campaign was launched on 4 June 2009, in the UK. Simon Singh, a science writer who alerted the public about the lack of evidence supporting chiropractic treatments, was sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association (Sense about Science, 2009). Similar examples can be found in almost any country. In Spain, another science writer, Luis Alfonso Ga´mez, was also sued after he alerted the public on the lack of evidence supporting the claims of a popular pseudoscientist (Ga´mez, 2007). In the USA, 54% of the population believes in psychic healing and 36% believe in telepathy (Newport & Strausberg, 2001). In Europe, the statistics are not too different. According to the Special Eurobarometer on Science and Technology (European Commission, 2005), and just to mention a few examples, a high percentage of Europeans consider homeopathy (34%) and horoscopes (13%) to be good science. Moreover, ‘the past decade has witnessed acceleration both in consumer interest in and use of CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) practices and/or products. Surveys indicate that those with the most serious and debilitating medical conditions, such as cancer, chronic pain, and HIV, tend to be the most frequent users of the CAM practices’ (White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy, 2002, p. 15). Elements of the latest USA presidential campaign have also been frequently cited as examples of how superstitious beliefs of all types are still happily alive and promoted in our Western societies (e.g., Katz, 2008). On another, quite dramatic example, Science Magazine recently alerted about the increase in ‘stem cell tourism’, which consists of travelling to another country in the hope of finding a stem cell-based treatment for a disease when such a treatment has not yet been approved in one’s own country (Kiatpongsan & Sipp, 2009). This being the current state of affairs it is not easy to counteract the power and credibility of pseudoscience."

Matute H, Yarritu I, Vadillo MA (2010). "Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience". Br J Psychol. doi:10.1348/000712610X532210. PMID 21092400.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

The threat to public health is a statement made as a conclusion rather than an assumption. This is indeed about the topic psedoscience according to the source. For example, "This being the current state of affairs it is not easy to counteract the power and credibility of pseudoscience."

One of the main pseudoscience points from full text is: "As preoccupied and active as many governmental and sceptical organizations are in their fight against pseudoscience, quackery, superstitions and related problems, their efforts in making the public understand the scientific facts required to make good and informed decisions are not always as effective as they should be. Pseudoscience can be defined as any belief or practice that pretends to be scientific but lacks supporting evidence. Quackery is a particular type of pseudoscience that refers to medical treatments. Superstitions are irrational beliefs that normally involve cause–effect relations that are not real, as those found in pseudoscience and quackery. These are a serious matter of public health and educational policy in which many variables are involved."

The authors summarised the public health issue in the abstract. According to the source pseudoscience is a serious matter that threatens public health. It is OR if we don't summarise the main pseudoscience points because it would be taking the source out of context.

From abstract: "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved."

Matute H, Yarritu I, Vadillo MA (2010). "Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience". Br J Psychol. doi:10.1348/000712610X532210. PMID 21092400.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) The WP:V compliant source must be restored and sumarised at Pseudoscience.

The Matute reference does not need to be a MEDRS qualifying review of pseudoscience literature. The text meets WP:SOURCES. It would be a violation of NPOV to imply a serious dispute where there is none. Therefore it should not be attributed and when the Matute reference is reletively new and peer-reviewed it must be given dueweight. Do you agree the source can be restored and summarised at pseudoscience. QuackGuru (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Kingston U

Good edit. Incidentally, the combination of the username of the contributor, her list of contributions, this article, and this AfD may be interesting. -- Hoary (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

Hello, Itsmejudith. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Can someone offer an opinion, please?.
Message added Nightw 09:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks - for the actions on Leuren Moret - Roger - Rhotel1 (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Charlotte Iserbyt

Charlotte Iserbyt article was flagged by you for notability.

She was appalled at what her children were being taught in school, and so initially became a local school board official to fight it. As a mom and parent of children, should you at least investigate this subject person, and determine if her criticism is verifiable? If so, could you assist in trimming the article to a state where it will not be summarily deleted?

Thanks.

In her video interviews (found on Google videos, and You Tube) she shows how certain course material in the school systems brought about wide spread illegal drug use, youth sexual promiscuity, thoughts of class warfare & self-hatred, and more. The educational system was molded into a mind control system for base animals.

One anecdote she tells is that a school trip travels to the rich mansions as well as the poor trailer park sides of town and the school children are asked to consider "what the rich and poor families eat and have?" From this the child learns to hate the rich family for having lots of things that the poor family just cannot afford to buy--without considering the job and educational status of the two families.

Iserbyt's views are controversial because she has rightly identified and documented who is responsible for a number of embarrassingly negative developments in our modern society.

A main stream news source owned and controlled by the very people she is criticizing is very unlikely to provide her a vehicle to voice her evidence against them. She is a critic of the elite fascist / Fabian socialist forces of globalization who have incrementally, undemocratically forced the formation of the EU, and soon the NAU. Those same forces worked to ensnare the USA into WW1 (via the sinking of the Lusitania) whose goal it was to form the world government of the League of Nations. The same folks brought in US Federal Income Tax, the privately owned cartel of the US Federal Reserve System, and virtually control the US State Department. WW2 followed with the formation of the United Nations. Critics like Alex Jones chronicle that Republican and Democratic parties are virtually the same, controlled at the top, behind the scenes by the same group of people. Soon the Security and Prosperity Partnership will have US forces operating on Canadian soil while Canadian natural resources are privatized and monopolized by multinational corporations. Countries are essentially trusts--a form of corporation. Critics point out that America Corporation will merge with Canada Corporation and wipe out both constitutions in favor of some kind of Napoleonic code undemocratically written by the ultimate backers of U.N. concepts.

Identifying the Iserbyt article for notability is a nice first step to its being deleted and that will suppress her information from Wikipedia visitors. Oldspammer (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I may agree with UN concepts on education, in particular the UN Charter of Human Rights inclusion of the right to education. That doesn't affect the notability discussion, anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how this addresses the sources or editing that could be used in the article to augment the subject's notability? Alex Jones (radio host) has interviewed this author. Other alternative internet / web news organizations have also interviewed her too, Jeff Rense show, News With Views 1, News With Views 2, News With Views 3, Uncensored Magazine (international) did a piece too, The Republic Broadcasting Network hosts a YouTube embedded video interview of her, The Genesis Communications Network refers to her books to illustrate the modern use of mind control in America, Gramercy Images News (Gramercy Capital Corporation) hosts a web page with an embedded YouTube video about how she provided Dr. Anthony C. Sutton with the membership lists of the Skull and Bones secret society of Yale University, Red Pill TV on the web under suppressed reality dot com hosts a YouTube video of her. Some family history is included in the obituary for her husband Jan for 2008. Oldspammer (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. My own views as a WP editor have no bearing at all on the notability discussion. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Stars in astrology

Do you know how to revert a page when the name was changed? I am trying to revert on Stars in astrology, as per bold-revert-discuss, but somehow the new name always stays on when I visit previous versions. The problem could stem from several edits already being done since they changed the name. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Itsmejudith. You have new messages at WP:NPOVN.
Message added 13:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Request

Can I ask you something?Ahmad4d (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course! Ask here, or email me. I will remember to look at my email, usually I don't. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

17th century women in church

With regards to our discussion on this thread about gunpowder, I have finally found a reference to back up my claim. It came from Cavaliers & Rounheads: The English at War 1642-1649 by Christopher Hibbert. Saltpetre manufacture was a Royal monopoly and Crown employees had the right to enter private property and dig-up the floors of pig sties and hen coops. "In 1638, 'saltpetre men' as they were known, had sought permission to extend their activities to the floors of churches 'because women pisse in their seats which causes excellent saltpetre'." I was mistaken about the exact date; 1638 was before the Civil War but we were at war with France. Alansplodge (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

How funny and interesting, thank you for looking it up. I still don't know whether they actually did, or whether the saltpetre men just guessed they might. It makes my blanket denial less certain though. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

History of astrology - for your attention possibly

As someone who has contributed discussion in the past - you may be intersted in this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_astrology#Deletion_of_unreferenced_content Cheers, Zac Δ talk 00:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Academia

Miradre has been editing this previously neutral and anodyne article and adding what I consider to be inappropriate and unencyclopedic content (in my view an improperly sourced essay). Please could you take a look? I have tried to reason with him on the talk page. but with no success. Mathsci (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will alert WikiProject Universities. I didn't previously know of this article, which could do with attention anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Mathsci (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

American Left

Hi Judith!

TFD has run away to the noticeboards again, repeating a BLP violation that I corrected on the talk page.

I trust that you did not misunderstand my anecdote of today's NYT piece on Reagan like TFD.

Nearing disassociation,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. As long as you are editing in good faith and not trying to push a POV then you have nothing to fear from the boards. Attention from more people is always good. I'm afraid to say I didn't take any account either way of your Reagan analogy. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by May 23, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 10:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 10:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Beat up a White Kid Day

Thanks. I still thinking that the title is pov, what do you think? It's important because normally in a merge we'd leave the old title as a redirect, I'm not sure if we should do this here. In any case, is this something you can do or help with? It will have to lose almost all of its content. Dougweller (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

We may have problems about the claims in the Plain Dealer that a lot of people claim it exists as a custom. As I can't find any other sources, I don't believe it. 14:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

Yes, I don't really think the title is going to be a sensible redirect, remembering that few people will have heard of this or want to search for it. The claims in the Plain Dealer seem to be really in the nature of ephemeral tittle-tattle. I expect if a local paper announced that 1st April has always locally been Wear Only One Sandal Day, some lonely people would write in and say they remembered it well from their childhood. I am tempted simply to merge and cut down as I do so, but I expect that will be controversial as it has survived 2 AfDs. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say trim and think of a new title first. Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

WP World's Oldest People in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject World's Oldest People for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Cross-quarter days

Thank you for clarifying cross-quarter days, etc. — Robert Greer (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Based on previous experience with those articles. And I have yet to find the time to implement the suggestions. Thank you for your contributions too. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Terminalia arjuna

Thanks for encouraging me to work on this. I think it's now brought back on topic. =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.193.2 (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Glad to be of assistance. Perhaps we should ask people at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard to give it a further check through. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Can't hurt! =) 86.178.193.2 (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

RSN submission for Spirit Level mediation

The request to RSN has been made here. Sunray (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For you work on the Background section of 1948 Arab–Israeli War, which dramatically improved the readability of the article. Well done! Frederico1234 (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you got time to revisit an article?

You passed some comments on an article regarding which I still have some doubts. I am on decent terms with the present contributor - Abstruce - but remain uneasy about the sourcing. This diff is the latest attempt to bolster, and you will note the iranchamber.com reference immediately above the added paragraph (I've had doubts about that for some time).

I'll certainly take another full look at it myself but it probably won't happen for a day or so & I rather think that Abstruce would prefer to get some encouraging noises (or otherwise) sooner than that, if possible. I would like to keep them "onside" as it were because they're certainly enthusiastic. - Sitush (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ayurveda

I grow a bit weary of trying to fix up Alt-med articles. You find the nastiest surprises in them. Links to promotional websites, bizarre non-sequiturs...

Think this is starting to get fairly reasonable. Worry a bit that "Scientific evidence" may be a little too... prone to including weak evidence, and things unrelated to Ayurveda. But I've at least removed the worst of this.

Best to reply here. This is a dynamic IP. 86.176.222.119 (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Astrology worldview

Hi - an editor has volunteered to develop content on other cultural systems of astrology and is asking for guidance on what is required. I've given a suggestion so that the editor feels encouraged, but I'm not sure if my view is in line with yours - maybe you want to comment and specify how you feel the article will be improved in regard to this?

Since the problem is being attended to, are you happy for the tag to be removed? -- Zac Δ ^talk! 02:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The tag is there for information purposes and also to attract editors who might be in a position to correct the situation. So I think it should stay in place until the problem is resolved. I would like to think that I can contribute to the solution. My view about the article in general is that rebalancing is needed between Astrology and History of Astrology. In the end it may be that Astrology is - well, something a bit more than a disambiguation page - but an outline of the different kinds of astrology, and then the detail of the kind of astrology I think you are interested in, western "serious" astrology (if I may describe it like that), would be in a sub-article. rItsmejudith (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Please retract your personal remark.

Wow. First you ask me to ignore editor insults, then you insult me by claiming I can't communicate, meaning that I either have to accept and ignore your insult, or break your recommendation to concentrate on content. Clever. Very clever. Please follow your own advice, and show good faith by retracting that statement from the mediation page.

Thank you. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It was general advice to both of you and I shall clarify that. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, and then I withdraw my objection completely. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reading suggestions

I will read those books! I'm currently swimming up to my waist in books, so it probably won't happen for a few months. Books, books, everywhere, not anymore to read! :) But seriously, when you have a moment, could you take a look-see at Darwinian literary studies for any outstanding issues? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yuk! Joseph Carroll (scholar), indeed a scholar, but probably non-notable, spamming his own work into the encyclopedia. Needs to be rewritten from start to finish. What you did already is fine. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I think the food companies do a market research when launching each new product, and they would probably ask about colour. "Consumers want it" is only a surface argument that can quite easily be unpacked. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Fordism

Thanks for the note, I'll review Fordism to its talk page soon. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Varieties of astrology

WLU just cleaned up this section, and I just left a message at his talk page User talk:WLU about possibly merging it with the "World Traditions" section. I suggested he get in contact with you, because, if I remember right, you are the one who originally wrote the material. Also, was any of your material that was reverted by the SPA not restored? I tried to make sure it was. Sorry if I missed something. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Secretary

Unfortunately, you seem to have effectively deleted my comment off the ref desk: [4]. I know that occasionally the software doesn't give edit-conflict warinsngs when it should... AnonMoos (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that was completely unintentional. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

List of vegetable oils

Hey, Judith, think you could have another look? Waitak's done his best, and we plan to move on to the much harder List of plants used as medicine when it's done. For a list which, by necessity of completeness, contains a certain number of oils which are experimentally produced or primarily used for odd things, I think he's done quite well. 86.** IP (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Pleased to. It will be a quite quick look. I stuck my oar in before without noticing how involved you had been. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! 86.** IP (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Bert Bell

Bert has gotten so much better since editing Paul it's not even funny. I am very happy. Thanks. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

No, thank you! Because it is really good to have someone around who can take really good care of that aspect of PR's life. The rest of us know practically zero about American football. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Identified Editor

I understand that discussions on the Astrology talk page can get heated and have a long history of being immensely frustrating for all parties. However, it is not helpful when you write "Ken McRitchie has the gall to turn up here trying to spam his own pseudo-research into the encyclopedia." This is ad hominem criticism of an editor who does not have your protection of a pseudonym. Just because an editor is easily identifiable through online searches, should not be an excuse for "opposition research". Wikipedia must be open to all editors including experts. I understand that you may dislike his conclusions. However, if you consider that his research is 'pseudo' and that this would help us solve an impasse then you should show that you have looked into it and explain why. At this point, his paper is not being proposed. Robert Currey talk 19:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC on Astrology

Because you have participated in a related RfC on this article, or have recently contributed to it, you are hereby informed that your input would be highly appreciated on the new RfC here: [[5]]. Thank you! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

My error at University of East London

Thanks for reverting my revert at University of East London. I didn't spot the the "art" thing was mentioned twice in the same sentence, and the IP's edit summary for the removal was non-existent. Still, it remains my bad ... and your good! - Sitush (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No sweat, most minor of errors. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution for Usage share of operating systems

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Usage share of operating systems, Usage share of web browsers". Thank you. --Jdm64 (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

Please do not remove Biographies of Living Persons prods from an article unless it contains at least one reliable source or was created before 18 March 2010, as you did with Stephen Gorard. If you oppose the deletion of an article under this process, please consider sourcing the article or commenting at the respective talk page. Thank you. Clarkcj12 (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll find a source pronto. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this of interest?

Judith, I'm working on something else but came across this and wondered if you might find this book review of interest since it offers a good, introductory overview of Chinese astrology, its use of constellations, and how many of the principles came together in the Han period (206 BCE to 220 CE). I understand the book being reviewed is expensive but there is a generous preview on Google books and it is also acceptable to quote reviews. Also, you might want to take a look at this, which references it too. If it's not for you right now, I'll come back to it myself when I have more time -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. The book certainly looks good. We can quote reviews if they carry authority, so I would have to check out the review you have posted. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Paul Robeson

Hi Judith. I've been trying to keep an eye on the changes, but there are so many of them. I'm about to go away for a week, but next month I'll make Robeson a priority. It would be great if we could bring it to GA or FA. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing PROD BLP

I see that you removed a PROD BLP tag from Stephen Gorard, with the edit summary "rm prod, meets WP:PROF, although article needs a lot of work". Perhaps you are confusing a WP:PROD BLP with a common or garden WP:PROD. Meeting WP:PROF is irrelevant to a PROD BLP, which may be removed only when the article has reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

86.** IP is a bit touchy

You'll have noticed 86's evasiveness [6], I'm sure William M. Connolley (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Given WMC has decided he has the right to make evidence-free accusations about me based on his own speculation, I do't see any need to tell him anything he can use in further speculative attacks. I'm not going to answer questions about myself because it'll just encourage him to keep harassing me. It's not like he'd believe me, anyway. 86.** IP (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It is fairly clear now that the answer to "have you had a previous account" is Yes. The one at fault here is you, for allowing people to think of you as a newcomer, which is deceptive of you William M. Connolley (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You've been engaging in evidence-free speculation about me for weeks, and now want me to say more. I answered all questions when I started editing, freely and openly, I'm not goign to go on answering them forever. It is none of your damn business, and if you continue harassing me, I shall ask for you to be blocked. If you think I engaged in some imaginary wrongdoing, prove it first. Once you have some legitimate reason to know things, then I'll answer you. I have answered such things before, and, if someone who actually needs to know asks me, I'll link them to it. Until such time, go away, you are engaging in harassment. 86.** IP (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I answered all questions when I started editing, freely and openly - where did you answer those questions? I'd like to read your responses William M. Connolley (talk) 09:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

IP86, you know that I have found your contributions very useful and that I encouraged you to set up an account. If you are, in fact, a sockpuppet of a banned user, then that needs to come out into the open. Perhaps you have mended your ways so far that you can be unbanned and allowed to start again. Or perhaps you need to bow out, which would be a sad loss for the work on cleaning up herbal medicine articles. Or, again, perhaps you're not a sockpuppet at all, in which case please say so and we can make sure that you aren't accused again. In any case, please help clear this up, because the waters in relation to the List of climate change deniers (can't remember exact name) are being muddied by this climate of distrust. Ta. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments on how featured articles are selected, stray edits about music,[7][8][9] emotionalised responses ... not a banned user, but certainly a known user. Mathsci (talk) 10:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

In which case it may not be abusive editing. The alerts to FTN of articles on medicinal herbs were certainly firmly worded, but inline with the way many of us write. "Have a look at this one, dreadful", sort of thing. And usually they were dreadful. In the case of this list article, it was more emotional than I could see the reason for. The discussion has become polarised in regard to that article. It has become "This article for or against?????" not "Can we get a good article on this topic?". With experienced pro-scholarship editors going to one side or the other, few arguments just the conviction that it is Perfectly Obvious that one is the Right side and the other Wrong. I did eventually read through the old AfDs. And I saw that I !voted in 2009 making the same point as now, to get rid of the quotefarm. Forgot that I did. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I have NEVER been banned, under ANY account, nor am I under any restrictions. I have said this before. I have a BT IP, which awre dynamically assigned to the whole country (as I understand it) so I should point out that some IPS beginning in 86 may not be me, but the ones on Fringe theories seem to have been for that time period. Also, what's with the attempts to geographically locate me? That's deeply disturbing. 86.** IP (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I have said this before - please tell us where William M. Connolley (talk) 11:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Several places, actually, but I seriously decline to give you any assistance in your attempt to violate my privacy. If you think you have evidence of an actual problem, fine; you don't, you just want to go fishing. 86.** IP (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

How can it be violating your privacy to read answers you've already provided? If you now think those previous answers violate your privacy, you should be asking for them to be oversighted. It just looks like you're being obstructive William M. Connolley (talk) 11:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

North East Surrey College Of Technology

Thank you for undoing one hour of work I put into neutralising and expanding ;) What you appear to have done is to introduce a lot of unnecessary short sections making the page look untidy, and cut a lot of the text and refs I added. I wouldn't mind, but this is not a univerity, and I work withing the guidelines of WP:WPSCH/AG. ¨Please consider checking an article's history and see who is currently working on the article, and consider discussing such major reverts. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I snapped above, but it was indeed one hour's work. Cleaning up the mess left by people promoting their schools, recasting and finding refs, uploading logos, etc for school aticles is mainly what I do here (when I'm not deleting them). Do please consider joining us for a team effort at WP:WPSCH/P if you'd like to give us a hand - particularly with UK schools. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You did good work on it, and I try and do the same with university articles. I only thought it needed a few extra touches. The lead contained info that wasn't in th[[ main body, so that did need attention, then I thought the uni structure might work well for it. Please restore any sourced content I took out, or I will come back to it if you don't have time. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

==Stephen Gorard We do need a publication list for an academic, but we do not need all his publications. The practice here for those people who publish both books and journals is to include all their books, and selected journal articles. (In this case, I selected 3 most recent, 2 of which are available free online at the moment, though they will soon disappear behind a paywall. Even better would be 3 or 4 most cited, but I'm a little rushed for time.) The relevant rule is NOTCV. And Wikipedia is not a good place for such, for they change frequently--it's the sort of detailed material that belongs on a website and is almost always found there. JBW removed a little too much, but a list such as the original one is generally regarded as an unmistakable sign of promotionalism. Please don't assist it. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I quite agree and it wasn't me that added the whole list. I may be able to recognise which papers are in good journals, and which have been cited, will have a look. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I know it wasn't you. I worded the note on the talk p there as a warning for the guy who originally put it there not to re-insert it. DGG ( talk ) 17:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Astrology RfC

Hey, you said at the ANI about the Astrology POV pushing that you were going to create an RfC. Have you done so? If so, could you post a link to it at the ANI? Thanks, Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd also second the notion that some kind of more formal and centralized process is desirable. At the fringe theory noticeboard, I suggested that a request for clarification of the several ArbCom cases dealing with this sort of thing might be in order. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I did start the RfC but Rich Farmbrough said hold back on it because of discussion at Templates for deletion. And that seems to be going to lead to the deletion of the template, which resolves the problem. If people think it might be useful to go to ArbCom for clarification, I'd not be against that, but the question(s) would have to be formulated clearly. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for your input

Hi Judith. As a frequent participant at the content noticeboards, I was wondering if you had some spare time to take a look at this thread. It's quite long, but the current issue (policy) being discussed only really comes into it in the last three days... Nightw 05:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Strike

Wishing you victory in your strike. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the pay is terrible around here! ;) Nightw 13:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks both for your good wishes ;-) Yesterday, the people united loudly expressed the opinion that they would never be defeated. They adverted "Francis Maude, pay attention, keep your hands off my pension". Today, the baton passes to a few trade union leaders who have gone along to negotiate with the government. Just one small development in the current transition to a new regime of accumulation (better called "development model" per Alain Lipietz) and/or a new world system, simultaneously with a technological revolution. But are we just looking upon passive revolution? Is there any possibility that it can become a transition to a new mode of production? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom request for clarification

You have been named an interested party at a request for clarification, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Heraclitus Logos/Tao

Thanks for your input - I looked for the quote (Zhang Longxi, The Tao and the Logos: Literary Hermeneutics, East and West, Duke University Press, Durham and London, 1992, p.30) in Google books but they cut me off just before it :-(. I can hardly make a ref to a quote I can't read. (Living on a mountaintop in Northern Portugal makes libraries not an option) However if you, yourself were to insert the reference on my minute addition at the end of the Tao article introduction ("It is worth comparing to the original Logos of Heraclitus, c. 500 BCE") that might be very kind. Steve.

Nice to have your message.I've only got it in Google Books too, although it does look good and I might see how much it is at Amazon. I think Google will let me read enough to be sure that I have understood enough, and then will add something. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Good idea - I now have an account - this is me Steve M Kane (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Steve. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Media_coverage_of_climate_change

I know you've been doing some research; any chance you have some better sources for the global cooling discussion (or, for that matter, the rest of the article: even before the merge, this was largely uncited content)? 86.** IP (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't. I looked for climate scepticism and denial and found a sociology and political science literature that puts it in the context of lobbying in the USA, oil industry influence, how scientific consensus gets formed. I was not looking for scientific papers. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Joy! Fun at Nordic race

Besides the addition of yet more dubious haplogroup stuff, the editor in question has been removing sources, breaking cites, and adding a section of rather clear racial cheerleading to the lede - did you know that Scandinavians are "some of the most talented people"? Both myself and one other editor have challenged this, but more eyes etc. Thanks. Ergative rlt (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. I have made a lot of edits, cutting out all or most of the off-topic nonsense, merging the Nordicism material with the Nordic race stuff. Some of it what is there now may be better placed in general articles on scientific racism or eugenics. Let me know if you have any opinions on that. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

What defines "helpful"?

Hi Judith,

FYI, it appears a certain user started editing in early Oct this year. Since then, this person has made about 869 edits as follows:

227 Article talk pages 109 User talk pages 373 Various Wiki Admin pages (AFD, noticeboard etc)

ACTUAL ARTICLE EDITS (all or close to all are just tagging) 20 List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assess 4 Global warming conspiracy theory ? 10 Climate change alarmism ? 1 Climate change denial ?

OTHER... mostly article edits regarding various health and medicine issues.

TOTAL 869 SUBTOTAL 700+ talk & wiki admin, largely arguing about climate change articles SUBTOTAL 35 climate article edits (all or nearly all just tagging)

I agree the climate articles need help. However, I disagree that this user's behavior is helpful, and I strongly do not agree that my pointing out this disproportionate ratio is, in your words, "not helpful". One of my mentors was fond of saying "If you don't sweat blood to make the good parts better, ya got no right to bitch about the parts that are broke." IMO, these numbers turn that axiom on its head, and that is where the problem lies. I am just the messenger. No offense taken if you disagree but I thought you should be aware of these numbers before condemning my comment. Cheerio... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

He brought a lot of herbal medicine issues to FTN, and they really did need dealing with. I still find it a bit odd that he denounces GW articles as promoting fringe when actually they are dedicated to debunk fringe. But debunking is a problem too, and I am glad for alerts to problems. A whole number of walled gardens have been brought to our attention on FTN recently, and I think really it is time we took action on all of them and stopped being afraid of people who try to WP:OWN. The walled gardens include: longevity (was a difficult ArbCom, owners now banned), herbal medicine, astrology, race and eugenics (not quite so walled garden but lots of problems), transhumanism. I'm listening less than I used to and trusting my impressions more. In a whole range of areas I have seen it argued that you cannot express an opinion without working to clear up the mess. Maybe. Today I spent a lot of time clearing up Nordic race, because it needed it. But perhaps my time would have been as well spent reverting the editor who added tendentious material to that article, and then getting back to GW, transhumanism, or astrology. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You leave out quite a few edits to Media coverage of climate change and various others. If editors were ALLOWED to edit List of scientists... I'd probably be willing to edit a lot more, but they auto-revert everything there, and if you do anything, people spend all their time complaining that you didn't discuss it enough, weeks later (Kim, especially). If you want me to edit, fine, but it's not going to work if I'm just going to get unthinkingly reverted, and told I didn't discuss enough. 86.** IP (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

As for Judith's question, there's a few that are pretty good, but it's a huge category of articles, and there's a lot that genuinely do promote fringe, though, like Global warming conspiracy theory and List of scientists.... 86.** IP (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"If editors were allowed to edit..."?? This is essentially the same complaint 86** made on Jimbo's talk page, that it was "impossible to get anything done". Which is most certainly not true, it is only that he is balked at putting through his program of changes for which there is no consensus. As NAEG has shown, his edits overall are not helpful, and they bog down the rest of us who are trying improve the CC articles. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In German South-West Africa, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages Damara, Nama and Herero (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Authors

Umm, I can't mention this on the discussion page because it's off topic. But I think B&B are knuckleheads because they write: "the essay was one what one might expect from an undergraduate..." on p. 75 and they do not include in their book a reason why he got involved in the arts. They are putzes. :). And yes, I am notorious for noone understanding me on the discussion page, you are not alone. When I write in an article, I spend 2-3 hours developing a sentence. I never spend more than 2seconds developing what I write on a discussion or talk page and I don't click show preview on a talk page or discussion page, bad habit I know :) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You are working harder on some bits of the research than the biographers did. Well done. I think it's worked because you have taken each moment of his life at a time and wondered what was really going on, what it meant. It's genuine historical research, and it is good for the article, except remember that we are doing source research not original research. One of our very best resources is biographies of people that PR knew. They might get bits wrong too, but when we put it all together we get a better picture. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

scratch: Literally scratched my head. The problems I have are: 1) Duberman's book is old, and 2) I do not know if Duberman had the resources that we have at our disposal nowadays. I understand original research to mean me interviewing so and so, or reading the transcript of Congressional testimony, which is unfiltered by a professional author and contains a lot of political posturing, or looking at one newspaper discussing a contraversial topic and deciding to include that newspapers account... I put a new section in on the talk page: Radio, Errata, Duberman, Spirituals, Jackie Robinson, Charitable Cause, Ben, The Lost Shepherd you can criticize what I said was wrong. But, I have not made any edits based upon what I wrote on the discussion page, yet. The stuff in 1924-1925 is who, what, when, where stuff that I went and researched in detail. I don't see any trouble with that, but what do I know. I have an article out there stating he performed the spirituals on March 15, 1925, where's Duberman on that?

BTW, can you get access to proquest? 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

And, ... original research complaints can not be made until I put content in an article based upon it. :) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

No-one is complaining; we are just trying to see how we can meet the requirements of Featured Article. Let me have a look at the 1924 to 1925 and see where you have added to Duberman or corrected Duberman, and how and why primary sources are used. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you access proquest? 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I have never ever used a primary source in an edit without a secondary source writing about it. (I did read the microfiche on the 15th annual NAACP conference cause it was the fastest way to ascertain a fact. But that turned up empty. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)