User talk:Delldot/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Ok I set mine up

You suggested that I mention when I set up for my own review so I have done so now, also I have a few people who I am waiting on replies from using the template that I mentioned on the WP:ER page. Even after I have got my review I will still be happy to help other Editors out (especially if I can get better at it) because I have enjoyed the 3 I have done so far. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 04:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

SAH

Hey there! Subarachnoid hemorrhage is on the edge of FA status, and I was wondering if you could provide a source (sources?) for Image:SAH incidence graph.svg (both inline and in the image description page, please :) Thanks, and looking forward to your next GA/FA, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for catching that. How I could have failed to do that boggles the mind. Anyway, done now, thanks for the thorough reviewing work (as usual). delldot talk 20:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK - Level of consciousness

On 7 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Level of consciousness, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Mifter (talk) 03:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Pulmonary contusion

I've done a bit more. I'm afraid real-life is interfering with my WP time and I'm also trying to respond to a GA review of ketogenic diet. So, I'm going to be real slow. I see you've got another review and there are plenty other folk if you need feedback quickly. If you have concerns about your sources being up to FA level, try User:Eubulides. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 13:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries at all Colin, take your time. I don't really even have a time frame in mind, plus I have a lot of real life stuff too. I appreciate whatever you can do to help me, but if you end up not having time for it I completely understand. Peace, delldot talk 15:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, delldot, I haven't found time to continue reviewing it. I won't have time in the next couple of days and then I'm on holiday for a week. Have you tried printing the article, and reading it out loud? You could ask User:GrahamColm for an opinion. Good luck! Colin°^Talk 14:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem Colin, you've been very helpful already, you certainly don't owe me anything. I was just asking if you thought it was it too sorry a state to bring to FAC without any further reviewing from you. Peace, delldot talk 14:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you have a look...

At Magnetic resonance neurography? I was cleaning up the references and it turns out that clearly the contributor (Afiller (talk · contribs)) is one of the inventor of the technology. While I don't think there is much COI going on, I figure it'd be best if someone with a more medical background had a look. Circeus (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I can have a look. I don't have much of a medical background though, just a bachelor's. I'll let you know what I think. delldot talk 18:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That's better than me. My (almost entirely non-academic) background is in plant science and languages :p Circeus (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, I thought it was pretty good, if a little heavy on the advantages and light on the disadvantages. I left a note on the talk page. Good catch, thanks for bringing it up! delldot talk 19:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoa

SAH is FA. I'd stuff your userpage with barnstars, but I think even that would be an inadequate sign of appreciation. Keep up the brilliant work. JFW | T@lk 19:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hooray! :D Congrats JFW, you did terrific work. Thanks much for the kind words! It was your work, though, that brought the article to the high standard it is now, no question. Peace, delldot talk 19:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

July 11 DYK

On 11 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Focal and diffuse brain injury, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford ^Pray 09:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for everything

		The Guidance Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for helping me to learn the process of reviewing other editors, and for giving me great advice on my Editor Review I have learned alot from you through both processes and just wanted you to know that I appreciate it%%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 15:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

:D Thank you! delldot talk 15:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Willie Wagtail

I am just waiting on trying to get a map but have the content just about right. A quick look-over to alert me to any grammar or flow glitches would be much appreciated... :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright

pick 1 from the following: 1/you have been exceedingly busy, mostly with subarachnoid haemorrhage. 2/ you have just been letting me figure out for myself that the idea i proposed 10 days ago was too clever by half (with clever, in this case, not being a +). 3/ i have somehow given offence. that said, i have an odd situation here. i have a reference with an only copyright date of 1928. (don't worry, it's not on medicine.)i know for sure that my copy dates much later than that. on the copyright page it has the usual 'all rights reserved, no reproduction ,blah, blah, blah. my understanding of copyright law is that the copyright on this should have expired in 1998. i would like to be able to make pretty much free use of this in an article, including some pix.it's one of the major references in its field. any thoughts? advice? pax vobiscum.Toyokuni3 (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm really sorry Toyokuni, I just forgot to respond! I'm sorry, I certainly didn't mean to ignore you, and you definitely haven't given offense! I didn't really know how to respond, so I thought I would look into it later, and I forgot. I don't have any experience with lists, so I wasn't sure if that was a cohesive enough thing to base a list on. Did you check WP:LIST and look at other biography-related lists for similar themes? I can try to help with this if you like, just give me an update.

I'm not really sure about the copyright question either, but I believe it's the death date of the author that's important, not the publication date. It sounds reasonable to say that if it hasn't been changed in the more recent publications, it's still public domain, though again I'm not sure (In other words, a Shakespeare play would still be public domain even if it was republished, while for a new textbook edition the clock would start over, but I'm just making that up). But copyright law is very complicated, and it depends on a lot of variables, including country of origin (see Wikipedia:Public domain). For images, the copyright expires after the death of the author plus 70 years I believe, at least if it was published in the US first. Sorry, wish I could be more definitive help. Did you try asking at the help desk? I can ask around more, and I can probably help more if you give me more info. Peace, delldot talk 15:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: I asked in the commons IRC channel, and others confirmed that unchanged republication would not reset the expiration date: it would be based on original publication or the death date of the author. It was also confirmed that the copyright expiration is the death of the author + 70 years, not the original publication date, but that it might be different depending on the country. Peace, delldot talk 16:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

many thanks. not the answer i wanted to hear, but it kept me from putting in work that just would have had to be removed. back to the drawing board. paix. Toyokuni3 (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Great suggestion!

So I spent some time playing around with the image map extension. I have already put it to use. with the help of Wikipe-tan and the Trifecta I have created a great little adaptation to the image on the WP:TRI page.

Thanks again for all your help! %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 21:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! Now why didn't I think of that? :P I bet there's a ton of stuff like that that you'd enjoy playing with, that was just the first thing that came to mind. You should talk to the bot type people, they might have more ideas for how to put your skills to good use. Do you ever use IRC? You should join #wikipedia-en on freenode and ask around some time. delldot talk 01:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I am on there right now, just wanted to check my watchlist while I was at it :) I may indeed bring it up. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 01:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Aww, too bad I missed you, but I'm on there all the time. Maybe next time. delldot talk 04:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Anarchist International

Just so you know, the article has been reposted and is virtually identical to the original one that was deleted. I've nominated it for speedy deletion. If it gets re-created a third time I would suggest blocking it from recreation. Zazaban (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good catch. I hate to salt it though, since there could conceivably some day be a notable thing called "Anarchist International" that could deserve an article. I'll just watchlist it. Thanks for your vigilance and for handling this so well. delldot talk 21:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Anna

She's now trying to argue that the deletion of the Anarchist International article is an act of vandalism and I am being called a vandal. Also, she's claiming that the anon who blanked my userpage and tried to sabotage the vote is not a vandal. Zazaban (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it. I'll try talk to her, I don't know if she'll see it my way though. Are you able to ignore the unpleasantness, or are you going to want to take it to ANI or whatnot if it continues? delldot talk 21:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I find it difficult to ignore her, she misrepresents her organization to an incredible degree (She claims it to be somehow related to the IWW) and generally uses underhanded tactics for reasons only known to her. She hasn't even ever been able to prove her organization really exists beyond its website. Zazaban (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it. Anyway, that's my advice, take it or leave it. delldot talk 03:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've asked her to take it to deletion review. Zazaban (talk) 05:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Does she have a problem with the process by which the consensus to delete was decided? Or with the fact that Wikipedians decided to delete? If it's the latter, DRV isn't really appropriate, it's just for review of the way the AFD was carried out, not for the article's merits. Seems like a pointless exercise anyway if the article doesn't have any RS, you know? I suggested that she work on a new article in her userspace with RS. delldot talk 13:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

She disagrees with it no matter what the process, so it would be the latter. She claims I'm a vandal and that the people who voted to delete are 'ochlarchists' and therefore their votes are invalid to her, if only because they contradict her. Zazaban (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so not DRV then. It's too bad about the conflict, but I wouldn't worry about it. If she edits disruptively, she'll be blocked. If not, she can be safely ignored. delldot talk 17:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reason to believe that the IP that was attacking my userpage and such was her using a meatpuppet, it talks just like her, nobody else uses the word 'ochlarchist'. I'm thinking about reporting her as a suspected meatpuppeteer, but I can't prove she is. Zazaban (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess if the disruption continues you'll have to report it, but I don't know how effective it'll be if you don't have any proof. I mean, if someone's being disruptive, they can be blocked just for that, whether or not they're a meatpuppet. delldot talk 00:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

G&A

The pulmonary contusion stuff from Grainger and Allison is from Ch 20... I don't know how to indicate this with the template. I use an online edition so I have no page numbers. Antelan 02:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, no problem, thanks again Antelan! delldot talk 03:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Rebel!

"sometimes I eat peanut butter and jelly with no bread"

Yeah! I saw that! :O

— CycloneNimrod^Talk? 16:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

:O Busted! Also, when no bread is available but tortillas are, it's PB&J burritos! delldot talk 16:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You disgust me! — CycloneNimrod^Talk? 17:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really :D — CycloneNimrod^Talk? 17:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It's only disgusting when you spread all the way to the edges and PB&J squishes out. Any real burrito maker can tell you that. :P delldot talk 17:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Pulmonary contusion FAC

Good luck! Although I'm not sure who your "chest trauma experts" are. I'm a pulmonologist, not a trauma surgeon. ;-) Axl (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much Axl! The chest trauma experts are an author and editor of an emedicine article on penetrating chest trauma and the author of one of the reviews in the references section. I don't know how thoroughly they read the article, but each declared it good, and two made minor suggestions (this was all done through email, though). delldot talk 18:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The Anarchist International Wikipedia page again

At my "user talk" I have quoted several newspaper-articles (~from paper editions, etc) and a book as independent sources to the Anarchist International page. Take a look at it and see if it is enough independent sources to put up the Anarchist International page again. In case you have other comments I would be glad to hear it. I can of course change the content a bit if you mean it is still not compatible with the Wikipedia standard, just give me a hint.(Anna Quist (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC))

Proposal to Anarchist International Wikipedia article in "sandbox"

I have recreated the Anarchist International Wikipedia page in a Anna Quist sandbox page for discussion and perhaps changes, to reach a consensus, for later to publish it (based on general consent). Feel free to make comments. The sooner we can reach consensus and publishing, the better. (Anna Quist (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC))

My reply delldot talk 03:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The link to the proposal to Anarchist International Wikipedia page for discussion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anna_Quist/Anarchist_International

(Anna Quist (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)).

Survey request

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, BCeagle0312 (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

What a pleasure it was to see your image added to traumatic diaphragmatic hernia, only moments after I created the article. Keep up the good work. --Arcadian (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing! I noticed it when you added it to the injuries template. I had it around anyway for something that's been languishing in my user space. Weird cooincidence, huh? Keep up your amazing work yourself Arcadian, you're a tremendous asset to the project. Peace, delldot talk 04:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Anarchist International Wikipedia page again

To delldot. You wrote:"If you want, I can mark the sentences in your sandbox that I think need citations." I think this is a good idea. Hope you have time soon to do it, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anna_Quist/Anarchist_International for placing comments. I have also updated relevant information on my talk page(Anna Quist (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC))

My reply delldot talk 14:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Another question, this time about how to find out if images are for free use

Hi again Dell, I hope you are well. I know images aren't your area but I thought I would ask anyways. :) On the article Quackwatch there is the logo there for the official website. How would I go about finding out if it should be in the article and not copyright protected? I would appreciate your help if you know. If you do not know, not a problem either. I am just curious how to do this for use overall in Wikipedia. Thanks and no rush, I won't be online here for much longer. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think I got this one! I think the image is copyright protected, logos usually are. A copyrighted logo can be used, but only under Fair use. For each article it's used in, there needs to be a rationale for that article on the image page. So the Quackwatch logo is not cutting it now: it could actually get deleted, because there's no rationale for the article. So let's add a rationale! You basically need an explanation for why you need to use it and to fill out each item on the list in Template:logo fur. How about you try to fill in the template as best you can and I'll explain anything that needs more explaining and help fill out any fields you have trouble with. This is from Template:logo fur, they have some explanations on that page. Cut and paste it into the image page Image:QuackWatch logo.png, and fill out each of the fields. Let me know what you need help with!

{{logo fur
| Article           = 
| Use               = <!--Choose: Infobox / Org / Brand / Product -->
| Used for          = 
| Owner             = 
| Website           = 
| History           = 
| Commentary        =
| Description       = 
| Source            = 
| Portion           = 
| Low_resolution    = 
| Purpose           = <!--Must be specified if Use is not Infobox / Org / Brand / Product-->
| Replaceability    = 
| other_information = 
}}

Peace, delldot talk 16:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the help again. I was going to delete it but I think fixing it to comply is even better.

How would I check if pictures in articles are Fair use and not Copyright protection though? Is there a system to check this or would I have to go to the download site and then see where it came from and go there to see if it is protected? It's too early for me to do this now, need a couple cups of coffee at least, but I will try what you told me and get back to you so you can check what I did to make sure I did it correctly. Thanks my friend, I always appreciate your help, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem Crohnie, always glad to. You would have to go to the site and see if it says anything about the image itself. A lot of the time they'll have something at the bottom of the page asserting that everything on the page is their copyright. It's a safe assumption, though, that any logo you find will be copyright protected. That's the thing about fair use--it's for using images that are copyrighted, like album covers or logos. We can use copyrighted images as fair use, but only in a very strict, limited set of circumstances. That's why we need the rationale on the image page: we have to be able to explain why this is one of those circumstances. Luckily, it is: use of a group's logo on the group's article to illustrate the group is well established. So let me know if you have any trouble filling out the rationale template and I'll help out! Peace, delldot talk 14:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Mmmmmm, coffee sounds good

The Anarchist International Wikipedia page again

Thank you for the comments Delldot. I will change my proposal to a new Anarchist International Wikipedia page according to your advice. I will also work with the anarchist historian H. Fagerhus and the International Institute for Organization Research to get sources to the relevant documents regarding the decisions of IFA-IAF-AI congresses and other meetings and from the International Anarchist Tribunal. We also have the e-mail source where the southern IFA-federation's secretary states the AI is lunatic. That speaks for itself. When I have made a new proposal I hope you have time to take a look at it, i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anna_Quist/Anarchist_International , again, for new comments. (Anna Quist (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)).

Glad to Anna, thanks again for putting in so much work to bring this up to a high quality. If the source for the 'lunatic' quote is an email, it shouldn't stay in the article. Remember, only information from reliable, published sources like books, journals, magazines, and newspapers. Email would be considered original research or, at absolute best, a primary source, which I don't think would cut it here. I may not have been clear enough, but I feel that the whole couple paragraphs that discuss that conflict should either be removed or pared down to a couple, extremely neutral sentences. I can't see how the 'lunatic' quote has much relevance anyway. I look forward to seeing your changes to User:Anna_Quist/Anarchist_International! Let me know when you're ready to have me take another look. Peace, delldot talk 18:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

OK - we will drop the quote from the e-mail stating the AI is lunatic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Quist (talk • contribs) 18:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good Anna, thanks much. delldot talk 18:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

INTI College Sabah

Hi there,

When I read your discussion, I can understand the problem. Now I am editing this topic (INTI College Sabah - Programmes) all over again. Also now I am trying editing to explain what this courses are all about by using my own words and not from the advertisement and brochures. So please check and see whether my work is alright or not so that I will be on a right track.

Also, there is one question I would like to ask, is it ok to plot down the list of subjects for each course (except English Improvement Programme) so that the people who surf the Wikipedia website will know what this courses are all about?

Many Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pisceslalena (talk • contribs) 05:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pisceslalena, Thanks much for contacting me to learn about Wikipedia and for working to improve the article. It's good that you're using your own words. However, I think the content you have added back will have to go. This is because it is not backed up by reliable sources that are independent of the subject (i.e. the school itself had nothing to do with writing or publishing them). In fact, I doubt this information has ever been published in a reliable source such as a newspaper, journal, or book. In Wikipedia, every fact must be backed up by a reliable source in order to comply with our very fundamental verifiability policy. I also recommend checking out What Wikipedia is not to get more of a feel for the type of content that is supposed to be included. You can also look at other school articles such as Baltimore City College to get a feel for the kind of information that's usually included. It is fine, however, to include the school's website with all this information in the External links. You could even include the main website and the website(s) with all this course information in an "External links" section, with a note explaining what information the page holds. That way people looking for this information will be able to find it, while people looking for a more general encyclopedia article will have a concise article. Would you like to remove the course info, or shall I? Sorry to ask you to do it, I see you've put a lot of work into it. Definitely let me know if you have any questions or anything to discuss, I'm always glad to help. Peace, delldot talk 14:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Pulmonary contusion

Congratulations on bringing it to FA. [And thanks for the barnstar. Much appreciated.] Axl (talk) 06:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You are most deserving! delldot talk 13:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

OK so let's try flattery now

Delldot, I think my last response to your GA review comments on Mental status examination might have been ungracious. Your comments and advice have in fact been very helpful and I think the article is vastly better as a consequence. I have also learnt a lot from the process. I was just getting a bit tired of the whole thing, and had other stuff to do, but I have since gone back and done a bit more (including adding some cool images) ... and I've had another look at WP:GACR and I do think it is good enough for GA ... would you mind having another look? Anonymaus (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words Anonymaus, no, you weren't ungracious at all. Lots of people would have been though, since I'm sure it was frustrating to have your work critiqued by someone with so little familiarity with the subject. Sorry, I don't think I'm the right person to give you a review, and I'm glad we decided I should step back: I don't know enough about the subject. I found myself only being able to give superficial advice about the prose and appearance of the article, not enough on the content. It isn't fair to you, or your work, to give it only a superficial review. I had a vague feeling that the article wasn't comprehensive enough, but I couldn't prove it because I don't actually know anything about the subject. When I stepped back, I asked Jfdwolff if he would have a look because he's a doc who knows the subject and had shown interest in reviewing it before. He said he might be willing after some GANs and the FAC of subarachnoid hemorrhage was over, which they are now. Maybe you could drop a request on his talk page. Also, I notice user:Stevenfruitsmaak has taken an interest in the article, a lot of times potential reviewers leave a comment or two before jumping in to see if they'll get a response (if not, we figure it's a waste of time to review). Maybe you could ask him for one on his talk page. You could also put a request for a review at the talk pages of the relevant wikiprojects, or I would be glad to. Sorry for the long wait Anony, I'm sure I did you a disservice by partially reviewing it, it'll probably have to wait even longer than (the already very long) average. While mine were languishing up there, I consoled myself with the knowledge that they'd probably come down pretty quick once they hit the "oldest GAC" list, and they did. Best of luck, I'm glad to help with anything you need if you let me know about it. Peace, delldot talk 14:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

'ello Gov'ner!

Not much up with me at all, my friend. On-wiki, I've been spending most of my time trying to diversify my skills. Off-wiki, my life kind of revolves around my upcoming wedding in a couple of months. So I guess things are peachy.

So, 'sup wit u? I see you're still kicking butt left and right on this delldot-pedia. Hope everything A-OK off-wiki.

Thanks for hitting me up the way you did. I think it's sweet that you remembered.

Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear back from you! Congrats on the wedding, hope it goes well! Those things can be stressful, or so I hear. Everything is A-OK off wiki, but I'm going to have to impose a limit on the amount of time I spend on wiki because it's taking over my life (again). My off-wiki life kind of revolves around trying to get a van converted to run on vegetable oil, with zero mechanical knowledge or skill. Best of luck with everything! Peace, delldot talk 13:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I hear you. You definitely take Wikipedia a little more seriously than an average bear which is great for Wikipedia (and for some other people) but it may be a little hard on you. Anyways, you're one of the smartest people I know so I'm sure you don't need advice from me on how to handle your bidness.

Sorry I can't be of any help with the vegetable oil van. I may be a man (barely, I'm told sometimes) but I'm not much of a mechanic. If my car breaks down and the gas gauge doesn't say "EMPTY", I'm screwed. If it does say empty, then I can proudly grab my toolbox and fix the problem. But I hope it makes you feel better that I also eat PB&J minus bread. It's a mostly a time constraint thing but sometimes I feel bread dillutes the flavour. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Awwwww, thanks SWik, you're (overly) kind. Hopefully throttling down the amount of time I spend here will work, otherwise it's another wikibreak for me, maybe 2 or 3 months this time (Noooooooooo!). I think being really addicted to Wikipedia and having no life are kind of a feedback loop, don't you? Anyways, no worries, any and all advice is welcome.

I hear you, I'm at about that level of mechanical skill myself. The job would take a mechanic maybe 4 hours, and so far it's taken us since May (and we still haven't actually cut into any hoses). But we have high hopes, because we actually figured out where some of the stuff we need (e.g. fuel line, fuel pump) is, and we even think we know what some of the other stuff is (e.g. the jug thing by the battery is probably a reserve tank for the coolant). Diesels are very puzzling though (e.g. why are there two batteries, and why does it still go when we disconnect one??) Updates as further events merit!

My PBJ thing is mainly a bread availability issue. Also, I don't really like bread. But It's so nice to know I'm not the only freak! Do you do this with other sandwiches too? What are your thoughts on using only one slice when at least one is absolutely necessary? delldot talk 15:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Even outside of PB&J I'm a huge proponent of folded single bread slice sandwiches. I like being able to eat with one hand for many reasons one of which is that I'm the messiest eater you'll (n)ever meet and I tend to touch things (Why? I don't know.) while I eat and leave a sample menu of my lunch on my clothes and other belongings. I've found one handed eating of single slice sandwiches to help out with this problem. Does any of that even make sense? I didn't think so.

Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Bwahaha! Ah, I haven't experimented with folding! I'll have to try that. I too am a messy eater. In fact, I think I'll go make a delicious mess with a peanut butter and honey burrito right now (why? because there's no jelly or bread, but there are honey and tortillas). You'd think burritos would be less messy because they're encapsulated, but I have not found that to be the case at all! delldot talk 16:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Always make sure to fold over one end of the burrito so the filling doesn't slide out when you bite into it. I understand the theory behind it but I always overfill the burrito and render it incapable of being folded in this manner.

Anyways, enjoy your snack. It's always nice to hear from you.

Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The Anarchist International Wikipedia page proposal is finnished

Hello Delldot! Together with H. Fagerhus, the well known Norwegian anarchist historian, I have made a new proposal to the The Anarchist International Wikipedia page, see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anna_Quist/Anarchist_International

I hope this is according to the guidelines of Wikipedia, and that it should be published. However if you have any new proposals for improvement, it is very welcome. All things can be imropeved.

(Anna Quist (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC))

Much improved Anna, I see the inline citations and that you've taken care of some of my concerns about the NPOV. Thanks much for taking out the stuff about the conflict with the Marxists, I think it's a much more purely factual article now.

The main thing I think will keep the article from being kept if you "publish" now is the lack of independent, reliable sources. Especially considering that the article was deleted because of notability and verifiability concerns, and because there seems to be beef with ... er ... certain parties who are almost certain to nominate it for deletion again. Therefore you're going to need iron-clad sources proving that this group exists and meets the notability guideline linked above. As I've said, I don't think the anarchy.no page will cut it in AFD: it's a website. I don't think you need to remove those citations, just add others in addition. You do have the journal, which I think is good. So that's one. For multiple reliable sources, I would say aim for at least three. If the group has never been discussed in a newspaper article, I really don't feel they are notable enough for an article, and I doubt the article will survive another AfD.

I'm sorry Anna, I'm sure this has got to be incredibly frustrating. Note that you don't need my permission for anything, you're free to move it to the mainspace and see how it fares at AfD. I'm merely offering my opinion that it won't survive based on my lengthy experience here. It would be a shame to see it deleted again after all the hard work you've put in. If you do move it, I won't nominate it for deletion myself; I won't be involved at all unless someone asks me to. But it is my strong recommendation that you find other reliable sources that metion the group. Peace, delldot talk 14:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: I see the link to the external sources, that's great. I recommend finding the reliable sources listed there that cover Anarchist International in depth, and cite them in the article. You can add a "Further reading" section, or, better, use facts from the publications to source facts in the article. This will be iron-clad sourcing. (The problem now is that the reader doesn't know whether or to what extent the organization is actually covered in those sources). Peace delldot talk 14:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The Anarchist International Wikipedia pgae - Further readings?

Hello Delldot. I will add a chapter about Further readings with weight on third party sources. I am a bit confused about how I shall do it. Can you give me some advice and perhaps give a link with an example on how this is done? (Anna Quist (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)).

Sure, the further reading section just lists books, articles, and other materials about the group. You start a new header, ==Further reading==, and under it, in a bulleted list (use * to make bullets at the start of each new line) list your sources. In other words, the further reading section is a list of print materials (not websites, those would go in external links) that you're not using to cite a particular statement in your article, but that still cover the topic.

However, I wouldn't use this as a replacement for inline citations. You need the inline references so people can quickly check whether the subject is significantly covered in those sources. You can do it as you have done, or you can use <ref> ... </ref> tags to provide inline citations (with {{reflist}} in the ==References== section). Hope this helps, let me know if you need anything else. delldot talk 17:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Further readings - AI Wikipedia page

Thank you for the advice about creating a chapter on Further readings. However I would like to see a good Wikipedia page that has such a section, so I can make a similar chapter. Can you provide me with a couple of relevant links to Wikipedia articles?

Material about Anarchist International (IFA -IAF- AI) organizations and their resolutions, are published in several articles of the CRIFA bulletin in English, French and Spanish, in the French (FAF) anarchist paper Le Monde Libertaire, and in The Italian anarchist paper Humanita Nova. How shall I quote these? They are not available online, it is paper editions. Shall I translate to English, or is it ok to quote the article names in French, Spanish and Italian? (Anna Quist (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC))

Sure, see at the bottom of Japan. Another way to do it is presented in Paulins Kill. Those resources you mentioned sound great. I would translate the title but be sure to mention in the citation what language they're in. You could also put the translation or the original title in parentheses. You can use the {{cite journal}} template, it automatically formats it for you: {{cite journal |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |year= |month= |title= |journal= |volume= |issue= |pages= |id= |url= |accessdate= |language= }} fill out as much info as you can, but you don't need all fields. The language= one is where you put what language it's in. Peace, delldot talk 19:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Further readings at the AI Wikipedia page

I have looked at the two pages you mentioned, and will create a Further readings section.

(Anna Quist (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)).

The AI Wikipedia page with Further readings

Hello Delldeot

The section with Further readings is finnished. What is your opinion? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anna_Quist/Anarchist_International (Anna Quist (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)).

The Anarchist International Wikipedia page again

Hello Delldot. As mentioned I have made a Further readings section with reliable third party sources and also added several external links, mostly with independent third party sources, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anna_Quist/Anarchist_International. I think the page is ready for publication. I would like to hear your opinion.

(Anna Quist (talk) 08:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)).

Speedy deletion oh The Anarchist International Wikipedia page?

Hello Delldot. Speedy deletion oh The Anarchist International Wikipedia page?

I posted the new The Anarchist International Wikipedia page, but it was tagged with speedy deletion. I protested the deletion at the talkpage. What do you mean I shall do now? I need help or else it will probably be deleted(Anna Quist (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)).

The new AI page is deleted

Hello Delldot. The new AI page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anarchist_International is deleted. I have however asked adminstrator Alex.muller to send me a copy of it. Perhaps I can publish it on another site. Is there any possiblity to recover it on the Wikipedia? Please give me some advice. I and Fagerhus have put some effort in making a good page, so we are a bit disappointed. We are also interested to know who, and on what ground, the deleting is done.

(Anna Quist (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

The new AI page is deleted

Hello Delldot. The new AI page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anarchist_International is deleted. I have however asked adminstrator Alex.muller to send me a copy of it. Perhaps I can publish it on another site. Is there any possiblity to recover it on the Wikipedia? Please give me some advice. I and Fagerhus have put some effort in making a good page, so we are a bit disappointed. We are also interested to know who, and on what ground, the deleting is done.

(Anna Quist (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

Oh, I'm so sorry to hear it Anna! I didn't think the thing would be speedy deleted, but I did figure it might not survive an AfD because of the problems I've noted above with lack of in-line citations to reliable sources. The deletion was requested by Triwbe and carried out by Maxim as a repost of the original article. I'm looking at the versions and I do see substantial similarity, I can understand why they would say it's exactly the same. Really the only differences are the added references and a bit of material added and removed in the last paragraphs. Given that the inline citations are not to a reliable source, I can see how they'd feel it's essentially the same. I can speak to them about it if you like, I'm sure they'll be reasonable. They may be willing to undelete and see how it fares at AfD. I kind of see undeleting it and taking it to AFD as pointless because I don't think it'll survive AfD.

To be honest, in my view the article is close but doesn't really cut it yet. The further reading section is fine, but I don't see "Anarchist International" in the titles of any of the artciles, so it's impossible to know how substantially the group is covered. If it's just a trivial mention in one sentence in each article, that's probably not enough; that is why I have kept emphasizing the need for in-line citations to reliable sources, especially for facts that assert the notability of the group (explain why it is important, see also WP:ORG). (Again, I don't consider anarchy.no to be a reliable source). Given its lack of coverage in reliable sources, I'm not really seeing the claim of notability.

If you'd like to publish it elsewhere, that's fine. Certainly anarchopedia.org would be a great place. Wherever you publish it, since it was originally here, you'll need to release it under the GFDL, ensuring that it will always be free content. In order to be in compliance with the GFDL, the page history will have to be intact so that you can reference the Wikipedia page in the article you publish elsewhere (so that each person that edited the page is "credited"). I can move these revisions to your userspace so you can refer to them there, but I think it would be best to only do that once you've decided not to continue working on the article here, or it will be more difficult to follow the history in any deletion discussions that take place. Once again, sorry for the hassle and disappointment. Peace delldot talk 15:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

My ears are burning. Hi both of you, if I may jump in. My view is that any recreation of the article is almost doomed. As a non-admin I could not see the previous version to compare, I have to leave that to the reviewing admin. The fact that the original article page is salted shows that you are up againts a lot of -ve opinion. To get any chance of acceptance I think you would have to get all these people involved again and show that you are making a proper effort to keep within the guidelines, but how to do that ? Deletion review ? arbitration, request for comment, Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron ? I am almost tempted to say create the article and AfD it immediatly to get a discussion going before CsD - but that may not stop a speedy del any how. --triwbe (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel your pain. I don't think delrev would be good because it's not a question of the closing admin's interpretation of consensus, obviously they did the right thing given that AfD. If Maxim wants to undelete and take it to AfD, I think that would be fine, but as I've said, probably pointless. I agree that it would be best to get everyone who was involved involved again if it does end up getting undeleted. If Anna's willing to give up on getting the article here and publish elsewhere, I'll move it into her userspace so she can point to it from there for the GFDL. Really I think that would be best because I'm not seeing it meeting WP:N at this point. delldot talk 16:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Attachment theory

Hi dell. Any chance of a bit of peer reviewing on this one? Casliber made a start but has become a bit overwhelmed by other things I think. Fainites ^barley 15:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, when I have time, maybe in the next couple days. Peace, delldot talk 15:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! Fainites ^barley 21:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Nuthatch

I think the ce by Awadewit is pretty well done now, barring any last minute queries, so if you wish to have another look, that would be good. jimfbleak (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The AI Wikipedia page again

To Delldot et.al. The www.anarchy.no is the most scientific and reliable anarchist website on Internet. Thus when you say "Again, I don't consider anarchy.no to be a reliable source" I cannot agree with you. You have to explain why you distrust www.anarchy.no. What facts do you have that prove this point of view? The so called "anorg-warning" made by the marxists Jamal Hannah and Peter Bach? This is almost entirely false. We have rejected and turned this down about 100% at http://www.anarchy.no/anorgwarning.html . Try to be more matter of fact. Now please explain to me why you distrust www.anarchy.no. with sound, scientific, matter of fact arguments.

I don't know what the AfD is, but the AI-page is finished from Fagerhus and me, and we are interested in going all the way on Wikipedia, before we try to post it on another site. So try to undelete it and we will see what happens. Ask the relevant persons to undelete it.

What is the GFDL? As far as I know Fagerhus and I have the copyright to the page, we made it. Thanks for all the help, that will be credited, but we are the authors. The helpers on Wikipedia have also contributed with a small bit of input to new updates of the www.anarchy.no. That is fine. Our AI-Wikiedia page is the truth about the AI. If Wikipedia is not interested in the truth, we certainly will find others that are. By the way, consensus means a page should be deleted only if all agree. If a few can decide deletion, it is minority dictatorship. (Anna Quist (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

Sorry Anna, I can see how this would be incredibly frustrating. However, I've given my opinion on what it would need to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. You are free to ignore it, but I'm familiar with WP's policies and I have a good idea of what Wikipedians will tend to want to delete. Reliable sources (in the Wikipedia meaning; I have no doubt that the source is truthful) are published by respected third parties, so they have editorial oversight. Sources are also more reliable when they (claim to be) neutral themselves, (e.g. a scientific journal). Read more about it at the guideline page WP:RS. As I said, I didn't think the article was meeting the notability criteria because it lacked reliable, third-party citations; it doesn't appear that it's going to be able to meet them, so I doubt it will be allowed to stay. On Wikipedia, it's verifiability that matters, not truth, as odd as that sounds. So I guess you could say WP is not interested in the truth unless it's backed up by reliable, published, third-party sources (this is because we're such a big project and we'd be overrun by unverifiable claims if we allowed them).

I don't know anything about the conflict between your faction and the Marxist folks other than what I read in your article.

The blue links in my responses to you are links to relevant pages. Thus GFDL links to the article where you can learn what the GFDL is. It's basically a license that ensures that content will remain free by disallowing someone from, for example, modifying it slightly and claiming that they now have copyright of it and disallowing reuse or redistribution. By submitting your work to WP, you released it under the GFDL (look at the text just below the edit window).

Yes, consensus means something different to Wikipedians than it does to the rest of the world, I believe I mentioned that before.

I do feel rotten about this because you did put in a lot of work, and you did listen to at least some of what I had to say. I probably didn't express myself very clearly, because it appears you've misunderstood a lot of what I said. I'm sorry. Peace, delldot talk 13:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

AI-Wikipedia page again - reliable resources

I have read WP:RS. It states a.o.t.:" 1. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science, although some material may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative theories. 2. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications."

Ad 1. International Journal of Anarchism is the only scientific, academic and peer-reviewed anarchist journal in the world. Thus stuff from the IJA is meeting this criterion and standard fully. The IJA-stuff is not questioned by any other reliable academic journal, it is not controversial and not outdated. In fact several academic/university websites link up IJA, together with all the other main academic/scientific economic journals. Thus the criterion for independent third party sources is fulfilled. The following universities/academic pages list IJA:

US Oswego State University of New York's List of Economic Journals on the Web

International Journal of Anarchism ...

http://www.oswego.edu/~economic/journals.htm

CPA DIRECTORY INDEX LawResearch ... International Journal of Anarchism · International Journal of the Economics of Business · International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems ...

http://www.lawresearchservices.com/firms/admin/cpa-econ-journals.htm

Resources and Links International Journal of Anarchism · International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research · International Journal of Applied Econometrics and ...

http://www.crsp.com/resources/links.html

Benno Torgler - Researcher in Economics, Tax Compliance and Tax Morale International Journal of Anarchism · International Journal of Applied Economics · International Journal of Business and Economics ...

http://www.torgler.com/benno/linksjournals.htm

Interneteki Ekonomi Dergileri ... International Journal of Anarchism · International Journal of Business and Economics · International Journal of the Economics of Business ...

http://www.seyfettinartan.gen.tr/journal.htm

Economic journals on the web ... International Journal of Applied Econometrics and Quantitative Studies · International Journal of Anarchism · International Journal of Applied Economics ...

http://cba.unomaha.edu/faculty/cdecker/WEB/Economic%20journals%20on%20the%20web.htm

ad 2. "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications." We have listed/quoted several newspaper/journal articles, a.o.t from Norway's largest newspaper and the two largest economic newspapers. Thus, this criterion is aslo fulfilled. We have also quoted articles in the most reliable and largest anarchist journals outside IJA, the French Le Monde Libertaire, and the multilingiual CRIFA bulletin. Also they are relevant non-academic sources.

Thus, both 1. and 2. are fulfilled: I cannot see why the AI-Wikipedia page should not pass the WP:RS test.

Just undelete the AI-Wikipedia and let it go through the WP:RS test: I am sure it will pass. I will of course also come up with more material and answer to questions if somebody have questions. We have more material/articles, than mentioned on the AI-Wikipedia page.

(Anna Quist (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC))

The journals you list look like good sources. Do any of them have articles that cover AI? If you can provide inline citations for facts in the article with these sources, that would be very solid. I'm not going to undelete it because I'm not the person who deleted it (see WP:WHEEL), but if you explain that the article was substantially different from the first time it was deleted to Maxim, the deleting admin, I'm sure s/he will be reasonable. Show them the changes you made in your sandbox using the "compare revisions" thing in the page history. Peace, delldot talk 20:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources again

It is all articles with resolutions from AI-organizations, thus they cover AI and its main policy. Could you please discuss this and put forward may case about undelete before the deleter, i.e. put in a good word for me? The deleter said there was not much change from the old page, but that is not true. I put up all the relevant sources, that was lacking in the first page. The oldest that was deleted, from 14. juli 2008 22:43, is thus quite differenr from the current version. You are the one of the admins that now this case best, and you know the routines here well....

(Anna Quist (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC))

Diaphragmatic rupture

On 24 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Diaphragmatic rupture, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Congratulations! PeterSymonds (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Major changes to the AI-Wikipedia page

I have made som major changes to the AI-Wikipedia page, and I am sure it will meet the WP:RS standards this time. The new material is:

"The International Journal of Anarchism (IJA), [17]the organ of AI and International Institute for Organization Research [18], the independent research institute of AI, is a Refereed scientific journal, and the only Refereed anarchist scientific journal in world, quoting from IJA's official website:

Articles to IJA may be written in any language, and should be provided with an English summary. If the article is written in English, the summary can be omitted.

International Journal of Anarchism is a Refereed scientific journal. Refereed materials are publications reviewed by "expert readers" or referees prior to the publication of the material. After reading and evaluating the material, the referee informs the publisher/editor if the document should be published or if any changes should be made prior to publication. Refereed materials are also referred to as Peer Reviewed. Refereed materials are significant to the research and the literature of library and information science because they assure readers that the information conveyed is reliable and timely. With some exceptions a refereed article is one that is blind reviewed and has two external reviewers. The blind review requirement and the use of external reviewers are consistent with the research criteria of objectivity and of knowledge. The referees can a.o.t. help you polish the content of your article by improving the grammar, punctuation, and consistency, and by making content suggestions. The referees of the IJA are independent Norwegian senior researchers loosely associated to the AI-secretariate. Their first language is Norwegian, but they are rather clever in English and other languages.

The electronic issues of the International Journal of Anarchism are updated every time there are significant more informations about the different events and cases. But unless special cases, they are not redistributed by e-mail when they are updated. Also the IAT and other pages at www.anarchy.no are updated almost every day. Thus, to be updated on the news and comments about anarchy, anarchist(s) and anarchism in different connections, it is necessary to visit the AIIS-web sites every day.

The IJA is listed among the other main scientific journals in the world by several universities and other academic sources, i.e. the US Oswego State University of New York's List of Economic Journals on the Web, see [19], by Cpa Directory Index - Law Research, see [20], Resources and Links at http://www.crsp.com, see [21], by Benno Torgler - Researcher in Economics, Tax Compliance and Tax Morale, see [22], Economic journals on the web of http://cba.unomaha.edu/, [23], and Interneteki Ekonomi Dergileri, see [24]. The IJA is thus seen as the most reliable anarchist journal in the world. Other important, but non-academic anarchist journals, that have published AI-IFA-IAF material is Le Monde Libertaire (French) and the multilingual CRIFA bulletin, see Further readings below.

Other important non-academic journals that have published AI-IFA-IAF resolutions are the largest newspapers in Norway, Verdens Gang, see [25], and the two main economic journals in Norway, see [26], and Further readings."

I have also added another article to the Further readings list and added one new source at the External section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Quist (talk • contribs) 09:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The new AI Wikipedia page is the following: <removed by delldot talk>

Major changes to the AI-Wikipedia page (copy of note to Maxim)

I have made som major changes to the AI-Wikipedia page, and I am sure it will meet the WP:RS standards this time. Thus I hope you will not delete it if I publish the new website on Wikipedia. What is your opinion? Please give a quick reply. The new material is:

"The International Journal of Anarchism (IJA), [17]the organ of AI and International Institute for Organization Research [18], the independent research institute of AI, is a Refereed scientific journal, and the only Refereed anarchist scientific journal in world, quoting from IJA's official website:

Articles to IJA may be written in any language, and should be provided with an English summary. If the article is written in English, the summary can be omitted.

International Journal of Anarchism is a Refereed scientific journal. Refereed materials are publications reviewed by "expert readers" or referees prior to the publication of the material. After reading and evaluating the material, the referee informs the publisher/editor if the document should be published or if any changes should be made prior to publication. Refereed materials are also referred to as Peer Reviewed. Refereed materials are significant to the research and the literature of library and information science because they assure readers that the information conveyed is reliable and timely. With some exceptions a refereed article is one that is blind reviewed and has two external reviewers. The blind review requirement and the use of external reviewers are consistent with the research criteria of objectivity and of knowledge. The referees can a.o.t. help you polish the content of your article by improving the grammar, punctuation, and consistency, and by making content suggestions. The referees of the IJA are independent Norwegian senior researchers loosely associated to the AI-secretariate. Their first language is Norwegian, but they are rather clever in English and other languages.

The electronic issues of the International Journal of Anarchism are updated every time there are significant more informations about the different events and cases. But unless special cases, they are not redistributed by e-mail when they are updated. Also the IAT and other pages at www.anarchy.no are updated almost every day. Thus, to be updated on the news and comments about anarchy, anarchist(s) and anarchism in different connections, it is necessary to visit the AIIS-web sites every day.

The IJA is listed among the other main scientific journals in the world by several universities and other academic sources, i.e. the US Oswego State University of New York's List of Economic Journals on the Web, see [19], by Cpa Directory Index - Law Research, see [20], Resources and Links at http://www.crsp.com, see [21], by Benno Torgler - Researcher in Economics, Tax Compliance and Tax Morale, see [22], Economic journals on the web of http://cba.unomaha.edu/, [23], and Interneteki Ekonomi Dergileri, see [24]. The IJA is thus seen as the most reliable anarchist journal in the world. Other important, but non-academic anarchist journals, that have published AI-IFA-IAF material is Le Monde Libertaire (French) and the multilingual CRIFA bulletin, see Further readings below.

Other important non-academic journals that have published AI-IFA-IAF resolutions are the largest newspapers in Norway, Verdens Gang, see [25], and the two main economic journals in Norway, see [26], and Further readings."

I have also added another article to the Further readings list and added one new source at the External section.

I hope Wiki-consensus about publishing of the page can be reached before I publish it. What is your opinion? Is the page good enough for publishing?

The proposal to the new AI- Wikipedia page is in my sandbox, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anna_Quist/Anarchist_International —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Quist (talk • contribs) 14:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you're doing the right thing contacting others that have an opinion in the matter and trying to discuss it with them. I don't think you should keep publishing it, because it's going to keep getting deleted unless you can convince others it shouldn't be, and the continual repostings are going to confuse the issue. It's a volunteer project, and people are only willing to put so much time and energy into your one article. Therefore the more confusing you make it, the less help you'll get.

No need to post pages to my talk page, I can simply follow a link to the page if you enclose it in double square brackets [[like this]].

I apologize if I haven't been as helpful as I wanted to be: I tend to forget how complicated WP policies are to newcomers. I feel like I've said this repeatedly, but I probably wasn't as clear as I should have been: the article needs inline citations from reliable sources that are independent of the subject and discuss it in a non-trivial manner. Independent means not involved with the subject in any way. Non-trivial means a substantial part of the article or work discusses the subject. I have explained these points in previous responses to you, but let me know if you need further explanation. You've certainly worked hard on this and I can see from some of your work that you've read at least part of what I've written to you. I'm starting to conclude that no such independent, reliable coverage of the group exists, since it still hasn't been added. If that's the case, I'm really sorry, but it simply can't have an article on WP. It would certainly be appropriate for other publications.

If you don't get a response from Maxim, and want to keep pursuing it, the appropriate route would be WP:DRV to explain how you thought the article was substantially different from the version that was deleted through AFD. Again, though, I think it's pointless without those reliable citations. I'm not going to be able to be of any help if you can't provide those. Best of luck Anna. Peace, delldot talk 15:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Inline citations to the AI-Wikipedia page

I will not publish a new proposal to the AI-Wikipedia page until Wiki-consensus is reached.

As far as I can understand the articles in Verdens Gang, Dagens Næringsliv og Finansavisen, plus Le Monde Libertaire and CRIFA-Bulletin have inline citations of the type you mention. They agree with AI because no opposition is following these articles. And there is no opposition to the IJA-stuff in the other scientific journal either.

You wrote "The journals you list look like good sources. Do any of them have articles that cover AI? If you can provide inline citations for facts in the article with these sources, that would be very solid." These articles cover AI.You also wrote "Much improved Anna, I see the inline citations and that you've taken care of some of my concerns about the NPOV." The IJA-stuff is not questioned by any other reliable academic journal, it is not controversial and not outdated.

I have read WP:RS. It states a.o.t.:" 1. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science, although some material may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative theories. 2. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications."

Ad 1. International Journal of Anarchism is the only scientific, academic and peer-reviewed anarchist journal in the world. Thus stuff from the IJA is meeting this criterion and standard fully. The IJA-stuff is not questioned by any other reliable academic journal, it is not controversial and not outdated. In fact several academic/university websites link up IJA, together with all the other main academic/scientific economic journals. Thus the criterion for independent third party sources is fulfilled. The following universities/academic pages list IJA:

US Oswego State University of New York's List of Economic Journals on the Web

International Journal of Anarchism ...

http://www.oswego.edu/~economic/journals.htm

CPA DIRECTORY INDEX LawResearch ... International Journal of Anarchism · International Journal of the Economics of Business · International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems ...

http://www.lawresearchservices.com/firms/admin/cpa-econ-journals.htm

Resources and Links International Journal of Anarchism · International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research · International Journal of Applied Econometrics and ...

http://www.crsp.com/resources/links.html

Benno Torgler - Researcher in Economics, Tax Compliance and Tax Morale International Journal of Anarchism · International Journal of Applied Economics · International Journal of Business and Economics ...

http://www.torgler.com/benno/linksjournals.htm

Interneteki Ekonomi Dergileri ... International Journal of Anarchism · International Journal of Business and Economics · International Journal of the Economics of Business ...

http://www.seyfettinartan.gen.tr/journal.htm

Economic journals on the web ... International Journal of Applied Econometrics and Quantitative Studies · International Journal of Anarchism · International Journal of Applied Economics ...

http://cba.unomaha.edu/faculty/cdecker/WEB/Economic%20journals%20on%20the%20web.htm

ad 2. "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications." We have listed/quoted several newspaper/journal articles, a.o.t from Norway's largest newspaper and the two largest economic newspapers. Thus, this criterion is aslo fulfilled. We have also quoted articles in the most reliable and largest anarchist journals outside IJA, the French Le Monde Libertaire, and the multilingiual CRIFA bulletin. Also they are relevant non-academic sources.

Thus, both 1. and 2. are fulfilled: I cannot see why the AI-Wikipedia page should not pass the WP:RS test.

(Anna Quist (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC))

Ahhhhhh, I see the confusion. I was asking for inline citations in your article (although it's a very good thing that the sources you list do have their own inline citations). So far it looks like the article only has inline citations to the website anarchy.no (which, as I've mentioned, people will probably not find reliable) and the anarchism journal (which is good, but apparently not independent of the subject, and either way this is just one). The reason I didn't consider just listing the other articles to be enough is because the reader can't tell without accessing the sources whether and how much they cover the subject. If you provide inline citations for specific facts using them, that will address this problem. delldot talk 17:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Message from Maxim about the Anarchist International Wikiepedia Page

<removed Maxim's talk page>

Third party sources at the AI-Wikipedia page

I guess Dagens Næringsliv, Finansavisen, Verdens Gang and Le Monde Libertaire and the CRIFA-Bulletin must be considered as independent third party sources.

Many thanks for all the help you have given Delldot.

(Anna Quist (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC))

No problem, thanks for all the hard work you've put in. No need to copy pages to my user talk page, please link me to them instead. Peace, delldot talk 05:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20