ICouldBeWrong

ICouldBeWrong Workspace

I need a bit of space to work in. As I can't mentally keep track of all Wikipedia guidelines, tag syntax, and content I'm working on. Please allow me the privilege of using these 'Workspace' sections for this purpose, and dispensing with the formality of signing comments in this section. Any unsigned comments in the workspace sections are by me.ICouldBeWrong (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User page essentially states that using a user page as a workspace is OK: 'Another common use is to let people know about your activities on Wikipedia, and your opinions about Wikipedia. So you might include current plans, a journal of recent activities on Wikipedia, and your (constructive) opinions on how certain Wikipedia articles or policies should be changed. If you will not be editing Wikipedia for a while, drop a note on your user page to that effect'. Also some interesting info on creating subpages Wikipedia#Creating user subpages.

Workspace: Wikipedia guidelines

I've been involved with collaborative internet communities for some time. Wikipedia is the most successful example I'm aware of, and I'm interested in its decision making process. Also I respect the goal of Wikipedia to create an online encyclopedia and want to contribute in a helpful and polite way. Some links:

The five pillars of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, has a neutral point of view, and is free content, Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner, Wikipedia does not have firm rules.

List of policies and guidelines policies take precedence over guidelines.

Avoiding common mistakes when editing Wikipedia.

Notability of People 'A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject' ... 'Any biography' ... '1. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one. 2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.'

No original research Secondary sources are preferred, and an article must have at least some secondary sources. Primary sources are OK in some cases such as images, also 'A primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any educated person without specialist knowledge.'

Verifiability 'Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy', and 'Editors should be careful not to use sources that present material originating from Wikipedia to support that same material in Wikipedia, as this would create circular sourcing'.

Reliable sources 'Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable'... 'published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses', well regarded academic press is a bit vague. 'Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market'.

Citing sources 'All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.'... 'Citations for World Wide Web articles typically include'....<snip long list of info>. There are different methods embedded citations (no back-link), parenthetical referencing (seems workable), and footnotes (my favorite).

Resolving disputes, power structure, still don't have a clear view of this, Arb Committee, different kinds of editors, etc, etc. Silence and consensus the maxim is "Qui tacet consentiret"... "Silence gives consent".

Category:Wikipedia maintenance Category:WikiProjects Category:Wikipedia backlog

Workplace: Issues of style

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) some bio's I like are Robert Watson-Watt, Arthur Percival, Lord Nelson, John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough, Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, Nikola Tesla, and Prince Eugene.

Strunk and White, The Elements of Style, a classic, full text.

Q. What's the recommended process for complementing a paper reference with an online reference. E.g. if a paper reference has has a google books or archive.org scanned/ocr'd version then I'd like to add an inline link to the online version, even if it's only a preview. IMO interesting Wikipedia Article + scanned references available online == rapid learning.

Workspace: Interesting articles

Military_science Interesting article from a management perspective.

Edwin Bryant see also oxford scholarship online external links for chapter articles.

Bryant quote "In my view, the Indo-Aryan invasion/migration theory, at least in its present forms, as well as the dating of the Vedic texts, remain unresolved issues that invite unbiased fresh scrutiny" from either, Journal of Indo-European Studies 30, 2002 or Journal of Indo-European Studies 31, 2003, quoted in Kazanas final reply.

Bryant wrote The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate

Out of India theory fascinating theory.

Bletchley Park Hut 8 The Mahon book is available online, also Alexander wrote a book that is available online, and the Copeland book includes a letter from Turing to Churchill these would be good Hut 8 references. These books were written circa 1945 and declassified circa 1995. They contain much information about the structure of Hut 8 into a theoretical cryptanalysis room, crib room, Banburismus room(IIRC or maybe another crib related room). The Hut 8 article should at least mention that many personnel are not listed (e.g. the 'girls' in the Crib room).

The essential Turing: seminal writings in computing, logic, philosophy ... By Alan Mathison Turing, B. Jack Copeland

History of Hut 8 by Mahon

CRYPTOGRAPHIC HISTORY OF WORK ON THE GERMAN NAVAL ENIGMA by Alexander

Begin daily reading

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_languages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoastronomy#Fringe_Archaeoastronomy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoastronomy_and_Vedic_chronology#cite_note-16

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_astrology#cite_note-2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedanga_Jyotisha

http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0502/ejvs0502.txt 'precessional motion of equinoxes'

http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0703/ejvs0703d.txt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession 'axial precession'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession_(astronomy) '5,000 years ago , the vernal equinox'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_coordinate_system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernal_equinox

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernal_equinox_point

End daily Reading

Workspace: Leonard George Chapman TODO

Leonard George Chapman

Replace tertiary sources with secondary sources. Specifically replace the Wikipedia links with better references. This will be time consuming as the Wikipedia pages linked to often don't include references (otherwise I would have used them). So I might need to find references for the Wikipedia pages I've linked to. e.g. 'Context of Chapman's work' links to History of Radar#Chain Home but that section has no references.

I'm not sure if I can replace the primary sources with secondary sources. In some cases primary sources appear to be OK. For instance the pictures I've uploaded are primary sources, it seems that pictures are an exception to the no primary sources rule. I guess in cases where no secondary sources are available (as appears to be the case with pictures on many Wikipedia articles) it maybe OK to use a primary source.

Another case where I think it's OK is if it complements the secondary source, for instance I've linked to an entry in the London Gazette (a secondary source I suppose), regarding Chapman's permanent commission, but then scanned in and uploaded the extract from the London Gazette sent to the Air Ministry (a primary source I guess). I remember reading a Wikipedia guideline article that stated this was an OK use or a primary source (but can't remember where).

Also are the Air Ministry, and Bawdsey Research Station secondary or primary sources e.g. regarding Chapman's award for his invention of the 'Chapman Method'.

I would like to buy the bistatic radar reference here's the cheapest source I can find Advances in Bistatic Radar offer

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, ICouldBeWrong! I am Rettetast and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Rettetast (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Advice

From my experience, one approach to curing from nationalism disease and prejudices inflected upon the intelligent mind by it is in educating oneself on the cultural diversity of the world, in particular of the neighboring peoples, their historical origins, customs and linguistic background. In your case, I suggest studying some Avestan, and statements such as this will all of a sudden cease to be "extraordinary". Avestan is like a lost twin brother of the Vedic dialect. Its grammar is, in fact, so ridiculously reminiscent of Vedic Sanskrit (from the same sandhi combinations, vrdhi-guna morphological gradation scheme, inflectional suffixes either identical or a few trivial sound changes apart, the same declensional categories, the same separation of verbal roots into ten conjugational classes etc.), that claiming that they separated thousands of years before y. 2000. BCE would sound nothing less then ludicrous. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to except Avestan is similar to Vedic Sanskrit. But 'lexicographical parallelism' does 'not necessary point to simultaneity'. Please see pg 249 of The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate By Edwin Bryant. Also 'no linguistic means attempting to document the rate of language change has been proposed since the rejection of glottochronology as valid' pg 239. (preview is available on google books). Kind regards ICouldBeWrong (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm reading that page and it starts with: The Avesta, as we have seen, anchors its chronology on the same Indo-Aryan migrations.. which is plainly wrong since Avestan is an Iranian language, and has abs. nothing to do with Indo-Aryan migrations, meaning that the author is either clueless or is deliberately twisting the truth. This is not just "lexicographical parallelism": Old Avestan and Vedic dialect are so strikingly similar, sharing dozens of basic sound correspondences and most of the grammar, that they must have originated from a common ancestor spoken at most 500-1000 years earlier.

AFAICS, that author claims that Indo-Iranian split occurred much, much earlier than usually assumed (~ 2000 BCE), after which for thousands of years Old Iranian and Old Indic dialects barely changed, and in the 2nd millenium BCE they suddenly diverged. That is, of course, possible, but very unlikely for an expansionist nomadic culture that extensively interacted with other-language speaking populations (and which left a clear trace in the various layers of borrowings).

BTW, I'd hardly call glottochronology "rejected". It's used and extensively developed and refined over the half of century by prominent scholars. There are even some programs you can download, feed with lexicostatistical data and generate divergence graph over time. Underlying mathematical apparatus also significantly changed from a simple logarithmic equation in Swadesh times.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you're not satisfied with the quality of my reference. I think it is a good example of a text that satisfies the Wikipedia Reliable source criteria.

The author Edwin Bryant received a PhD. in religion from Columbia University in 1997. He was a visiting scholar at the Center for the Study of World Religion, Harvard University, from 1997- 2000. In 2001 he was appointed Associate Professor of religion at Rutgers University, New Jersey, where he still teaches presently.

From the back cover: 'A balanced description and evaluation of the two century old debate dealing with the origins of the Indo-Aryan speaking peoples of South Asia. [Bryant] presents both sides of the issue, that is the traditional western, linguistic, and philological consensus of immigration from central Asia, and the more recent Indian position that denies any immigration and that asserts an indigenous South Asian origin. He probes for loopholes on both sides of the arguments and presents the multi-faceted evidence from linguistics, archaeology, texts, etc. in an even-handed manner. As such, the book not only is an important and very welcome introduction into recent Indian historical thought but also a valuable heuristic tool in re-evaluating many of the unspoken or un-reflected presuppositions on both sides - Michael Witzel'

Michael Witzel is Wales Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University, United States.

Kind regards ICouldBeWrong (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Also even if they viewpoint I'm presenting is incorrect, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be included in the article. 'Indigenists have raised some significant criticisms against the [Aryan immigration] theory that cannot just be brushed aside, and this, in my opinion, requires that the more sober voices from the Indigenous Aryan school cannot be denied representation in discussions concerning Indian proto-history ... Neglected viewpoints do not disappear, they simply reappear with more aggression due to frustration at being ignored.' quote from 'The Indo-Aryan controversy: evidence and inference in Indian history By Edwin Bryant, Laurie L. Patton'

I have tried to make sure it's clear that it's a minority rather than consensus opinion that is being included in the article.

Kind regards ICouldBeWrong (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding 'The Avesta, as we have seen, anchors its chronology on the same Indo-Aryan migrations.. which is plainly wrong since Avestan is an Iranian language'. pg 131 states 'the oldest part of the Avesta is attributed to Zarathustra. Zarathustra's date, unfortunately, is far from certain. Previously, a sixth century BCE date based on Greek sources was accepted by many scholars, but this has now been completely discarded...dating the Avesta can only be based on the same conjectural suppositions that characterize attempts to date the Veda'.

Regarding 'Indo-Iranian split...' without carefully analyzing it, your logic seems sound. But as you say it's not impossible, just unlikely. OTOH it seems that the probability of the archaeoastrology evidence occurring in the Vedic texts by chance is also unlikely. So it's necessary to evaluate and compare the contrasting evidence.

Regarding glottochronology, perhaps it's a useful tool, but it's no, ah, linguistic stopwatch.

Kind regards ICouldBeWrong (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Len Resume Page 1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Len Resume Page 1.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Leonard George Chapman permanent commission.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Leonard George Chapman permanent commission.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Young Len Chapman in Uniform.png

Thanks for uploading File:Young Len Chapman in Uniform.png, which you've attributed to Georgina Patricia Ross. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)