User talk:Beejaypii
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
This is Beejaypii's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Beejaypii. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||
Contents |
[edit] About the Survey
Hi Beejaypii, I want to make sure I understand your "not especially" answer on the survey. Would you not particularly like input on your writing because you're doubtful that the article reviewers will say anything useful, or because you're content with the article the way it is? (It's fine to answer here, I always watchlist user talk pages.) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Dank55. Sorry, that wasn't a very helpful answer I gave. What I really meant was that I'm pretty confident when it comes to things like grammar, vocabulary, paragraph structure and general writing style. These are aspects of Wikipedia editing which I feel I don't really need much help with. On the other hand, I find the kinds of recommendations made by Jza84 as part of the GA review for the Blackburn article very useful. Beejaypii (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WHO
Just thought I'd explain why I reverted your edit. In general, acronyms that are said as a word do not take the definite article, so that we say "the UN" but not "the UNESCO". This is the case with WHO as can be seen from their official publications and websites. BTW The Who is a band :-) Johncoz (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that WHO is pronounced like the word who, I think each letter is pronounced individually, like USA, and I don't think that the WHO website and publications demonstrate that this is not the case.
- When the is not part of the official name of an organisation, it is normally ommitted from the abbreviation, as with WWF (World Wildlife Fund) - which is not referred to as "the WWF" on their official website. I think that the word the is not officially part of the name of the World Health Organisation, and that's why the word does not normally preceed WHO on the organisation's website. I therefore agree with your revert, but the mistake I believe I actually made was to incorrectly assume that the word the is part of the official name of the World Health Organisation. BTW, I know that "The Who are a band" :-) Beejaypii (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Removing links
Please don't remove links to Prestonlancs.com again. That site is totally advert free, non profit, and community driven. And what makes it worse you removing it, is that I gave permission for my photos from there, to be used here, for free. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|Prestonlancs.com (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)] comment added by Prestonlancs.com (talk • contribs) 18:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, that contribution is problematic in several respects. For starters, your use of the phrase "And what makes it worse..." is a little bit confusing: does anything in the preceding part of your contribution establish that something is bad? I would say not, so why use the comparative adjective worse; what are you comparing to? Perhaps you believe it's so obviously bad to remove a link to a site which is "totally advert free, non profit, and community driven" that you don't even have to explicitly say so. Actually, there are many criteria to be considered when ascertaining whether an external link is appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, not just those you cite. Perhaps you'd like to consider this, for example, from wp:el#adv:
-
Due to the rising prominence of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote sites. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines.
-
- I put it to you that your username Prestonlancs.com is a strong indicator that you maintain the site in question, or are very closely involved with it, and your username is definitely advertising the site.
- You say "And what makes it worse you removing it, is that I gave permission for my photos from there, to be used here, for free." (another indicator that you probably have a strong association with the site in question). I'm not quite sure I understand the point you are trying to make here. You seem to be implying that because you gave permission for your photos to be used from the website for free, a link to that website should be maintained in the Preston article. Since when was the generosity of a contributor to an external website, who allows their contributions to that website to be used on Wikipedia for free, a factor to be considered when deciding whether a link to the external website should be maintained in an article?
- In order to avoid this situation arising again, might I suggest that you familiarise yourself with the advice provided at wp:el. Beejaypii (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I've asked at 'discussion' if prestonlancs.com should be allowed to be linked to, here.
Also, your 'extra traffic thanks to Wiki' remark is laughable, a whopping 16 referals for the whole month of April is hardly a temptation. I put the link here for the benefit of people searching for info on Preston, not for me or my site. Prestonlancs.com (talk) 04:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I didn't make any remark which even resembles "extra traffic thanks to Wiki". I did however, quote from wp:el#adv, and that quote includes the phrase "Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring". Perhaps that explains your mistake. Also, just in case you haven't realised, it's usual on Wikipedia to indent a reply to a comment one level further to the right than the original comment, using the requisite number of colon (":") characters. It makes it easier to follow the progression of a discussion. Beejaypii (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- I find you very condesending, Beejaypii. Now howabout putting your point of view in discussion, on whether the website should or should not be linked.
Prestonlancs.com (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Blackburn - wow!
Wow Beejaypii! What a transformation! - I had no idea that amount of work had been going on! Really, that is a great, great job you've done, and I think you've done Blackburn very proud (I love the static image!).
OK, from a cursory glance, there's not a great deal more to be done in terms of resubmitting a request for GA. I'd be tempted to create new Transport and Public services sections per WP:CITIES and WP:UKCITIES, and shuffle a bit of the content and images around to match those developments. I'd still be inclined to move Politics into a subsection of History as a new Political history section (it would adequately cover the immigration history too). Just my personal opinions, of course.
If you're OK with it, I'd like to raise awareness about this article at the WP:ENGLAND and WP:UKGEO wikiprojects? I think WP:GM would be interested too. If you need someone to "copyedit" the page with fresh eyes, there's one gent I could highly recommend - User:Malleus Fatuorum.
Once again, congratulations and respect for such an amazing turn-around for Blackburn. :-) --Jza84 | Talk 00:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments Jza84, and thanks for kick-starting the article development process in the first place with your original GA review. I'll continue to work on the article, and I'll see what I can do with respect to your recommendations. I'm also going to heed your advice and contact User:Malleus Fatuorum. Beejaypii (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] bullshit
yeah "3 edit revert rule" my ass thanks for your strategic timing of reverts to claim that on circumcision. pathetic. Revasser (talk) 00:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Blackburn's GA nomination
Good luck with Blackburn's GA nomination. I had another look through the article today and I noticed something that I think ought to be fixed asap. I don't want to put ideas into your GA reviewer's head, so I'm mentioning it here. ;-) There are a number of potential problems in the Notes subsection. You might get away with them at GA, depending on how closely the reviewer looks, but they'd certainly be a problem at FAC:
- Every citation that contains a URL has to have the date it was last accessed. I find it easier to use the {{cite web}} template for consistency, and I've added a few access dates that way but it doesn't matter how you do it.
- Dates have to be formatted consistently throughout the whole article, including the References. Look at ref~105, for instance, where the date isn't autoformatted (and incidentally "retrieved" is misspelt). Similarly ref #5 has "accessed" instead of "Retrieved".
- Ref #72 comes up with a blank screen.
- You need to give a publisher for every reference. For instance, who is the publisher for ref #63? I think there may be a problem in persuading a reviewer that it's a reliable source in any case.
- I'd suggest putting the details for all of the published sources into Bibliography, whether they're cited more than once or not. For instance, ref #3.
Basically I'd suggest going through every reference carefully and just making sure that they're all complete and consistent. I hope you don't mind me poking my nose in, but it's such a good article that I don't want to see it tripped up over silly little things like these that can be easily fixed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ok Malleus, thanks for highlighting these problems. I'll see what I can do about these issues shortly. Beejaypii (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- One more. (I know you're probably getting fed up with me, but hopefully it'll be worth it when you get that green dot.) "Major employers in Blackburn include: BAE Systems (Samlesbury Aerodrome site, located at Balderstone, northwest of Blackburn); Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council ..." There's an external link following that, which doesn't seem to support what's said anyway. All external links should be in the External links section. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- ... and another. The Manual of Style says to avoid directly referring to the topic in a section heading,[1] as in Roman Blackburn and Medieval Blackburn. What about something like Roman occupation and Middle Ages instead? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
It has been seven days since the initial GA review and hold of Blackburn. I do not think all the concerns have been sufficiently addressed and cannot recommend GA pass at this time. If you are still working on the article, please let me know and I will hold off from making my final review. Best, epicAdam (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Epicadam. I haven't had chance to dedicate as much time as I wanted to the article over the past week, and that situation probably won't change over the coming week. You might as well fail it for now. I'll continue to work on it, guided by your recommendations, and I'm sure it will eventually be up to standard; and when it is, it can be nominated and reviewed again. Thanks for the time and effort you've put into the review process. Beejaypii (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Overpopulation
I put some of the sources that you removed back into the overpopulation article. Walter E. Williams and Thomas Sowell are very well respected economists, and the other source also had some interesting statistics. All of these sources are far more accurate than Paul Ehrlich, whom you did not remove from the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest you take a look at WP:SOURCES. Beejaypii (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Paul Ehrlich has been wrong in all of his predicitons. His critics have been correct. But you removed the sources to his critics, but not to Ehrlich. So you removed sources that were correct, but left in the ones that were wrong. Even though Ehrlich was wrong, the article should still mention his bogus predicitons. His critics should also be mentioned, because what they said is true. The article should be balanced with all points of view. The evidence shows that there is no correlation between population density and famine. Instead, the evidence shows that famine is caused by government corruption. The most densely populated countries are those of western Europe, the Asian tiger countries, and Israel, but these countries don't have famine, because they have low levels of government corruption. The whole overpopulation argument is bogus, and the article needs to document this. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- Did you read WP:SOURCES? Oh, and "The whole overpopulation argument is bogus, and the article needs to document this." That sounds like a very bold claim. Can you support that through references to articles published in reliable, peer reviewed sources? Beejaypii (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Paul Ehrlich has been wrong in all of his predicitons. His critics have been correct. But you removed the sources to his critics, but not to Ehrlich. So you removed sources that were correct, but left in the ones that were wrong. Even though Ehrlich was wrong, the article should still mention his bogus predicitons. His critics should also be mentioned, because what they said is true. The article should be balanced with all points of view. The evidence shows that there is no correlation between population density and famine. Instead, the evidence shows that famine is caused by government corruption. The most densely populated countries are those of western Europe, the Asian tiger countries, and Israel, but these countries don't have famine, because they have low levels of government corruption. The whole overpopulation argument is bogus, and the article needs to document this. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
