I just created the page User talk:Michael P. Barnett/archive 01 and cut and paste the entire contents of this page to it. I have checked that it exists. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)Michael P. Barnett (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked immediately after I did it, and I think it is ok. I followed the instructions in Help:Archiving a talk page and hope that what I did, whilst minimalistic, is adequate. I will repeat here any comments I or other editors have made that are needed for background.

My immediate comments respond to most recent posting by User:Johnuniq. These comments are self-contained.

1. Many thanks for recent response. Extremely helpful. I will study WP guideline articles that were recommended.

2. My overwhelming concern now is most efficient way to get information recorded, within WP guidlines, in form that is usable by other people, if that information is of any interest to later Editors, and I get hit by a truck, metaphorically (or literally).

3. The concern is compounded by the retrieval, from storage bin, of boxes of laboratory publications from RRE and MIT in perfect condition, and potential retrieval of boxes of correspondence relating to Charles Coulson and King's College London 1948-1953, IBM UK, etc.

3. I started chronologically, with substantial edits to Discussion pages for Shelter Island Conference and British Rayon Research Association, and minor edits to the Article pages for these, and to the Discussion pages for John Wilson (industrial chemist) and Shirley Institute.

4. I hope I have not broken any rules (particularly COI) by putting material into Discussion pages that I think are not yet (or ever) suited to Article pages. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(just clarified one sentence and corrected the editing of another)Michael P. Barnett (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, how could we establish William Moffitt's notability and add a page? Are there any available obituaries or summaries of his work? Jim Killock (talk) Personal blog 14:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael P. Barnett. A Worcestershire Project page has now been taken on by a reviewer for Good Article after a very long wait. Several points need addressing, but the page has not been rejected as an immediate fail. If you have time, please see Talk:Evesham, and if you can address any of the points listed, I'm sure that between us we can get it through to GA. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick look at the Evesham Discussion and Article pages. I drove through the town many times when I was at RRE, and I may have spent a few hours there whilst on vacation since then, but have no direct knowledge of the town of any substance. However, I have prescriptions for building the article about Malvern, that I hope to put on the Malvern Discussion page during the forthcoming week, and these may suggest corresponding ways to build the Evesham article. More anon. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Michael P. Barnett (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael. A brief comment if I may. Direct knowledge of a place is not a prerequisite to article improvement. Indeed it can be a hindrance if one is too parochial and unable to step back to see the article as a novice reader would. I personally know nothing of Evesham other than what I've found in the Wikipedia article and references I've sourced. This can be helpful, because a novice will want to know some basic things, like 'where is the place', 'who started it', 'when' etc.

I note from various discussions of yours, and if I'm not mistaken, that you not only have some background in the RRE, but have a numbe of publications to your name. I'm guessing this link pertains to your publications. Of course one can cite one's own works in the relevant context, in the same fashion one would cite anyone's work in the relevant context. Your knowledge of a field enables you to recognise where you can cite works by yourself or others. The key is to treat one's own work in the same fashion one would treat any relevant reference.

Wikipedia is a very imperfect database, as I'm sure you know, and as any objective editor would concede. It is absolutely replete with stub articles, which are literally impossible to avoid if one attempts to develop an article and interlink relevant topics, authors etc. A large portion of the boasted 3.5 million articles must be stubs, which makes the numbers claim misleading. Then there is edit-warring, various argy-bargies going on etc. Then there's articles on topics in which the very basics are not covered. I own several anatomy and physiology textbooks (still, despite culling my library for over a year now). On one occasion, I recall wanting to know a basic anatomical fact. Since I was logged onto the internet, I thought it might be quicker to go to the relevant Wikipedia article on the topic. There was an article, but the very basic fact I sought, which should have been in the introductory paragraph, was not there, so I resorted to my books anyway, going to my shelves, pulling a 1500 page book, checking the index, and then text. Then there's articles about topics on which there are some very well known authors or texts (i.e. the authors and texts are invariably referred to in literature on topic X). Sometimes these texts are available online in full or preview format, yet despite their reknown, are not mentioned in Wikipedia.

One could go on ad infinitum with examples. But Wikipedia will always be sub-optimal. It will never be 'academic' level, certainly not throughout. Nor should it strive to be. The majority of its readers are not academics, or specialists. They are lay-people. Some Wikipedia articles quite clearly look like pseudo-academic attempts, by editors who perhaps have not been able to demonstrate their great intellectual prowess in other arenas (publishing is as brutally competitive as any other human endeavour). Or there are articles that look like they are written by a secondary or tertiary student grappling with the detail of some topic. Some of those are a bit of a giveaway - they launch straight into the nitty gritty at about the level of a difficult portion of a course, as if the student is utilising Wikipedia to answer various topics, and they provide no overall synopsis that a lay-reader could make sense of. Nothing wrong with that. It's what I'd have done in some instances, because the exercise would facilitate learning of the topic.

The trick however is to take a topic and make it accessible to the lay-reader, with sufficient leads for those who want to take their knowledge further. By far the best science writers I've come across are able to do this, and they will often note advice given to them to attempt to do just that, utilising various lay-people to test the readability of their writing. I think it's easier said than done. But this is the challenge see, to take the stuff we know in great technical detail, and make it accessible, with hooks for the next generation of researchers, who could come from anywhere.

Part of the trick in contributing to Wikipedia, is to have a bit of fun along the way. The horse project community seem to do that reasonably well. Tackle some articles you don't really care about, and don't know much about, and just enjoy building the article, learning a bit about topic X, and honing your Wikipedia skills along the way. You don't need to prove yourself as a credible academic, expert or researcher. You've done that. Nor do you need to torture yourself over the imperfections of Wikipedia, or bog yourself down with the endless diatribe that is found in some talkpage circles. Wikipedia is a unique environment, of which the chief beneficiaries will be astute social scientists who recognise the immense amount of material it provides them for essays, theses, and various publications on the analysis of human behaviour. Meantime, maybe, just maybe, Wikipedia will achieve some of its encyclopedic aspirations. But don't hold your breath on that. Just get in, get a bit muddy, and have a bit of fun. Mmmm. Brief comment? Yeah right! Regards Wotnow (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comment. It is very helpful. I tested the waters with WP:NOR#Where will WP orthodoxy lead?. I was not surprised by the response. Part of trouble is that people are writing, with good intentions, on topics that have been studied in several branches of scholarship (philosophy, linguistics, epistemology, semiotics, logic, meta-mathematics, lexicography, legal and legislative drafting and disputation, ...), for several centuries. And some Wiki rule makers are writing without knowing this, or realizing how their efforts can be extended Reductio Ad Absurdum. Situation illustrates danger of democratic inadequately informed (trained) people setting rules -- has arisen in several countries following revolutions. However, not my problem and I really don't care provided they don't impact my substantive efforts.

Apropos Evesham, I looked at some material pertaining to the town that came to hand a few hours ago when I was working on something quite different. I may do some editing on the Article -- but I need to look at it, and the Discussion, and needs for improvement first. The publication list you mentioned is mine and omits all papers and books that does not have the focus of the web site it is on. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just put some material together on Battle of Evesham, looked at Simon de Montfort disambiguation, flagged it {{contested}} went back to Evesham and got impression it has been fixed. Also, I made some notes on buildings in Evesham the other day. But if no pressing need for any of this, please let me know.

PS But anyone interested in Evesham should look at Simon de MontfortMichael P. Barnett (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Wikipedia Epidemic error not much more than I wrote on the Simon de Montfort page. But at least it might spark someone else with an opinion to make it. -- PBS (talk) 11:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the article you want - or the start of it - see Hereditary peerage. For people to talk to, see WT:NCROY and WT:PEER. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And again. — This, that, and the other (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I answered your latest question on my talk page. Jpg1954 (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael. I have just read your contributions to WP:NOR. I think that you don't appreciate who the readership of the page is. It is for absolute beginners, and for a few extremely senior wikipedians to debate wiki-philosophy in stilted language. I suggest that should take to heart this policy. If someone expresses a problem with what you are doing, then ease back. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not appropriate to use a {{cleanup}} tag to point out why a title is redirecting to the wrong place, because what that does is to cause the page to function as an uncategorized page whose only actual content is still a broken redirect — which means that a person who clicks on molecular structure from Charles Coulson's article is still going to get directed to molecular geometry; they're just going to hit a speed bump before they get there. And then, because it's a standalone page without categories on it, the categorization project has to re-redirect it immediately anyway, because there's no real content for us to tag or categorize, and no page can ever be left sitting in articlespace without proper categories on it. All of which means that the cleanup tag fails to accomplish anything useful anyway — long story short, it just isn't a useful or productive thing to do with a redirect.

What you can do is one of three things:

1. turn it into at least the bare bones of a real, functional article about what you believe the title "molecular structure" should actually contain,
2. redirect it somewhere else instead, if a more appropriate target already exists,
3. list it at WP:RFD for discussion and/or deletion.

As well, putting a tag on molecular geometry, which you also did, is perfectly acceptable and valid; there just isn't anything useful to be gained by putting a maintenance tag on the redirect while it's still a redirect.

The average age of Wikipedians, for the record, really doesn't have much of anything to do with it. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My immediate concern is the article about Charles Coulson. There is no reasonable way to avoid stating that he made major contributions to theories of molecular structure, molecular dynamics and reactivity. Each of these is the subject of an article that is misleading. I cannot get sidetracked into trying to clean up these articles, or rewriting them. I do not have time to get into controversy about deleting them. If I just leave them, and remove hyper text brackets from the three terms, will the system put them back in. At least this will not lead anyone into erroneous material from the Coulson article. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your question at WT:Notability#Does being a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts meet notability criteria?. It doesn't matter, but FYI the proper place to ask generic questions about such things is on the associated "noticeboard". These are listed at WP:Noticeboards.

The answer that FRSA membership does not satisfy WP:GNG is saying this: An article about person X might say that X is a member of the FRSA. If that article is nominated for deletion, the issue will be resolved by deciding whether X is "notable" (i.e. do they satisfy WP:N?). FRSA membership will not help decide if a person is sufficiently notable to warrant an article. The answer you received is correct, but it is not saying that an article should omit mention of FRSA membership. "Notability" has nothing to do with whether a particular piece of information should be in a particular article. There is no easy way to decide what "should" be in an article, but people talk about "encyclopedic value" and WP:DUE. Essentially, if you are wondering whether to mention FRSA membership, just use your own judgment: is it a useful piece of information, or is it fluff?

By the way, when you want to archive this talk page again, you should add an archive box at the top (although there is no compulsion). You could copy what I have on my talk page, or ask if wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I raised the FRSA issue in relation to my comments on his notability on Talk:Paul Karslake I have questioned his notability, and another editor has stated "the items on the list (of Gnews hits on his name) do indicate notability -- for example, ... the various items referring to him as FRSA." I do not want to nominate an article for deletion -- just curious about the selectivity with which WP rules are applied. One study of WP made the front page of the NY Times a couple of days ago. More press coverage may follow. The preceding discussion in my talk page may not be in your sphere of interest, but it relates to the burden of trying to contribute to one article when that mentions topics that are subject of other articles which are appalling. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 11:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Paul Karslake article is dubious, and the notability that warrants an article is not immediately clear. I am not going to bother clicking on SarekOfVulcan's Gnews search link, but SarekOfVulcan is a very experienced editor and what they say is sure to be correct: yes, if you were in an AfD ("article for deletion") discussion, you should not use a Google search as evidence, but the items found (if worthwhile) may support notability. We have articles on minor rapists and con artists, and a lot more: notability is not a badge of honor! Notability issues are very hard to follow, and I usually don't bother.

Re the previous section: Yes, that is another very difficult issue. As I mentioned here once before, ten years ago, Wikipedia did not exist. Everything here has been created in the last ten years. So the fact that the articles you would like to link to are rubbish is regrettable, but the best way to proceed is to link to them anyway. In due course, the articles will probably be improved. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This raises a very interesting question. Am I, as an inexperienced Editor (or just a reader) entitled to know which articles that SarekOfVulcan found indicate notability, or is WP run on a hierarchical authoritarian basis which puts notability at the pleasure of a of a self selecting group whose identities are not known. This would make WP a VERY DANGEROUS tool of aggrandizement. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose that most of the actual contributors here (as opposed to the POV pushers and miscreants) were doing so in good faith, would they want to take the time to respond in detail to requests from the many passers by? There is no hierarchy here apart from the inevitable fact that some are more experienced and better contributors than others, and they get respect. It is obvious that Wikipedia is used for aggrandizement, particularly in the pop culture and sporting area, but how could it be run any better? It may well be that Sarek is mistaken about this case (one of the nice things here is that people are allowed to be wrong occasionally), but worrying about incidental stuff is not a profitable way to use Wikipedia. There are two possibilities: if Sarek were to spend half an hour examining the Google search results, they would conclude that X, Y and Z show that the article satisfies WP:N, or they would conclude that their initial judgment was faulty, and that notability of the topic is not established (which would not prove that the subject is not "notable"). Either way, that would be half an hour wasted because none of us actually care about the topic. It is best to worry about areas of interest where you can make a contribution because Wikipedia definitely has faults, and they are not going to be fixed any time soon. Johnuniq (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your comment at Talk:Charles Coulson#Impasse Feb 4, and have a comment about one aspect. Since it is not really about improving the Coulson article, I am making the comment here.

The mathematics articles are not "controlled", they are watched by excellent mathematicians who are also very experienced and capable editors. I had a very quick look at Applied mathematics and its talk page and it seems to me that you did not engage with the issues raised; you did post a new draft, but you didn't say "yes I see what you mean, I'll rewrite to fix that", or "no, for the following policy-based reasons, I disagree". The article is clearly in good shape, so discussing problems with the current lead on the talk page would be more appropriate than replacing the short and succinct lead with a longer version which reads like a mini-essay. Also, per WP:LEAD, the lead needs to be a summary of information in the article, and should not introduce new ideas. Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you placed the hatnote for verifiability. If not, please excuse my thinking you did. I agree there is a need. The only item in the list now in the article which I had a part in is for Philip Woodward. The first reference covers his award, which mentions the horology. The second may be inappropriate without the first, but strengthens since the first states the horology is important. The final clause was left over from whoever started it. I think it an awkward formula for a happy statement. Is there a way around the present wording, e.g. starting "Philip Woodward, 1919-" with standard implication, or "..., long time resident, still active in ..." with reference to local newspaper interview -- presumably someone identifiably in Malvern could try to get this. If you reply could you use my Talk page please. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Philip Woodward article says: "Philip Woodward (born 1919) is a British mathematician, radar engineer and horologist. He has achieved notable success in all three fields. Before retirement, he was a Deputy Chief Scientific Officer at the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment (RSRE) of the British Ministry of Defence in Malvern, Worcestershire." That could be slightly rephrased for the Malvern article:- "Philip Woodward (born 1919), a British mathematician, radar engineer and horologist, was a Deputy Chief Scientific Officer at the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment (RSRE) of the British Ministry of Defence based in Malvern." Clear, direct, neutral - informing people who he was and his connection to Malvern. SilkTork *^YES! 22:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about:

"Philip Woodward (born 1919), a British mathematician, who worked on radar and related topics at the government laboratory in Malvern for forty years (see articles on TRE and RRE) also made major contributions to horology^[1][2]

The phrases "mathematician, radar engineer" and "mathematician, who worked on radar and related topics," have very different connotations. I think the lede of the article about Philip is unfortunate. It seems to be based on the Malvern Gazette article about the Picard award. And I think Bill Taylor who started the article was primarily a horologist, not necessarily tuned to the nuances of information theory. "Radar engineer" could be a technician who tightens screws on a truck radar. Philip's work had much wider significance than radar. Being a DCSO typically connoted major administrative success rather than scientific achievement, and it is the latter which makes Philip stand out. Also, the name of the lab from which he retired does not link directly to sites that describe his achievements. For verifiability (and to link directly to his success specifically in horology) I think the references to the award announcement and his book should be here. But I do not want to argue. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malvern is a Good Article, please see User:Kudpung/Don't lose the thread. Thanks,
BTW: I have just made a massive clean up of the Notable people section and I may have unwittingly disturbed some thing you were doing due to an WP:edit conflict. Please restore (only the references) if required.Kudpung (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI (sent to all contributors to the article) Kudpung (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kudpung —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.206.140 (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael. I just want you to be sure that I know nothing about the above link and who posted it. It geolocates to New Jersey and it may have been sent in good faith as it seems to have been sent to a number of editors who have worked on the same articles asyou and I have. My RfA isn't going as well as expected, but in the light of the unsigned canvassing, it's probably best you stay away from it. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 08:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George G. Macfarlane, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

• The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level.
• Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider

Thank you for helping Wikipedia!

Alpha Quadrant ^talk 03:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Michael P. Barnett and thank you for your feedback on Articles for Creation. You are correct, Wikipedia still has gaps, particularly biographies. You are welcome to continue writing articles. COI is meant to prevent paid editing and biased information. You appear to be doing a good job writing in a neutral tone so you shouldn't have to worry about that. To answer your other question the length of the George Macfarlane article is fine. If you need help with anything I would be happy to assist. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 14:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael, seeKing Edward VI College, Stourbridge#King Edward VI Grammar School for Boys, Stourbridge - Roland Lees. As one of our resident experts on RRE, are you able to verify this for us and if you can, provide a ref? Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Robert Bud and Philip Gummet, Cold War, Hot Science book lists all the early changes of Director in the notes and references (e.g. mentions Pollard was Director of RRDE at time of merger) but stops short of end of RRE as such. However, on page 250, reference 98 looks promising "On more recent developments in the organization of UK military R&D, see Council for Science and Society, UK Military R&D, Oxford University Press, 1986; P. Gummet, United Kingdom in European Defence Technology in Transition, ed. P. Gummet and J.A. Stein, Harwood Academic, 1998, 261-288. I think I do not have ready access to these books and will not see people who might help until next week. Someone in England would be able to do much better.

Also TECHNOLOGY AS A NEW CONDITION OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE is recent and refers to work by Gummet so editors with email addresses on site just linked may know how to reach him.

Incidentally, Cold War, Hot Science is rich source for more on TRE, RRE and related articles, including one on RRDE which we really need for symmetry. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help Michael - always full of excellent details. We have lots of problems with the referencing of school alumni, if at some time you can add a suitable ref it would be much appreciated. --Kudpung (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can get hold a copy of this book which my father has: Secret War in Purbeck by Jonathan Penley & W H Penley CB, CBE. Jonathan Penley is Bill's son. Bill was my father's boss at Worth, and he became at one time a director of RRE. Jonathan lives in Malvern. As far as my father knows, three more people are still alive from the Worth Matravers days: Ralph Sacks, Willy Ray, and Eric Kirk. The book is available from htp://www.purbeckradar.org.uk
--Kudpung (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

on becoming notable Michael P Barnett Jpg1954 (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You proposed a merge of Single-entry matrix, but you neglected some steps, as explained in help:merge, namely, you did not start discussion, so no other editor can comment on the proposal, nor did you tag the target article. I corrected the simple fact that Matrix is not an article, you probably meant Matrix (mathematics). Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you are not really interested in this, but as it makes sense to me I started the discussion properly. Feel free to comment (and maybe raise your original concern) here.--Muhandes (talk) 09:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that getting mathematicians to actually agree on anything is impossible, I withdrew the proposal. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 06:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael!

I replied to your comment, mainly by asking you to write something on Koopmans!

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Michael P. Barnett. You have new messages at North8000's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for the message on my talk page, nice to hear from you. I responded there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Michael P. Barnett. You have new messages at North8000's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for the return message on my talk page, nice to hear from you. I responded there. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can a citation be required immediately after the opening sentences in a lede when an editor in good standing (1) considers these inappropriate for professional reasons that he/she explains on the talk page, and (2) they are separated from the longer passage which they supposedly encapsulate by substantial text in the body of the article.

Acceding to such a request would be a non-arduous edit requiring just a few keystrokes. It would support the policy of increased collaboration that the WK Trustees state is a current and pressing concern needed to retain editors.

I ask because I raised the question on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#mathematical definition in relation to a specific instance that I may pursue on the relevant article page or its context. This triggered 11 pages of discussion that drifted away from the central issue, after an administrator seemed to say the citation could be requested and other editors expressed views that seemed directly contradictory.

"Experienced editors" can block the actions of WK novices (of which I am one) by protracted discussion of "legalisms" that side-step the substantive reasons for the challenge. "Legalistic" discussions are a conspicuous feature of WK that convey an impression of social networking that is not WK's intended purpose. It is counter-productive to the retention and recruitment of new editors, particularly experts with professional standing in their fields. I would like to know just where I stand before trying to push for a citation. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you prefer a really short direct answer (without the other nuances and recommendations given) the answer is yes, you can ask for a citation for material in the lead. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I withdrew the question on the helpdesk page. I will wikilegalize only as a last resort -- I will post material on Determinant talk page in next few days and hope to work it through by presenting a reasoned case. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was lurking here and I thought I'll give my opinion. While personally, if someone challenges a lead I wrote asking for a source, I will just add it even if it is well sourced in the article body, some people object to this and I see their point. The lead is in essence a summary of the article, and the fact should be challenged in the article body. --Muhandes (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been much conversation about this unusual situation, including at my talk page. After my earlier misfire, I posted my actual take on the situaiotn at wp:ver which is:

"Michael, If I could give my attempted 30,000 view, including in a Wikipedia context. (if I am mistaken, my apologies) You feel that the lead sentence is not optimal. At the appropriate place, (the article talk page) you started a very civil and intelligent discussion on the matter, and someone responded in a like manner. They did not even directly disagree with you and, appeared open to further evolution and changes. Then the conversation just ended in it's infancy. No drama,no impasse, no dispute, it just ended. I noticed that you have never attempted to edit the article except to place the cleanup template. I think that you are mistakenly thinking that somebody "stopped you" there, or that the only way you can change the article is to convince somebody else to change it, and now you have to pursue these other venues to discuss it. I also noticed that you are a newer editor, and that Wikipedia has an article on you and it looks like your works could be a source cited by Wikipedia articles as readily as you could be an editor. Wikipedia is the place to be bold. And the main way that you change an article is by EDITING it. If your edit might be controversial, you can talk about it first. Or just try making the edit. You might get reverted, starting wp:brd. That too is a part of the rough-and-tumble fun and adventure here. Jump into the pool and start editing!

Basically that Michael is being too cautious. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hudavendigar has made extensive edits to Ridley–Watkins–Hilsum theory. Do you think the changes are sound? Should we ask him/her to take a stab at improving Gunn Effect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpg1954 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC) Jpg1954 (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{Help}} I would be grateful if someone could point me to the WK "article" I saw a few weeks ago that was collecting comments on why editors leave WK. It was posted by the Trustees and the preamble stated that there had been a lengthy discussion of the topic and a unanimous decision to collect the information. I would like to add a constructive suggestion. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're looking for WP:RTV. All editors have the "right to vanish". That means that editors can vanish at any point (See link for full information, this is only a quick summary)--The wikifyer's corner 19:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is relevant, but what I am looking for was headed Update .... was posted by Board of Trustees (?of Foundation) mentioned a recent Board meeting at which there was lengthy discussion of loss of editors, mentioned the need for courtesy, and requested comments. Several of these mentioned unhappiness at wikilegalistic rejection of material. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen a couple of discussions about that topic, but I don't recall where. All I can find is Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-03-14/News and notes which points to http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_Trends_Study/Results. You would get an answer by asking at User talk:Mdennis (WMF) (FYI that person is the very well known User:Moonriddengirl who is Wikipedia's indefatigable copyright guru, and WMF is the Wikimedia Foundation that runs Wikipedia). Johnuniq (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strategy:Editor Trends Study and some of the other pages mentioned by Ting here may be helpful. ^Avic_ennasis @ 00:24, 2 Sivan 5771 / 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Such a summary was was included in the report on the results of an overall strategic survey. The publicized "document" which included it was a Wikimedia foundation set of objectives which included a recap of the survey. Hope that helps a little. North8000 (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So...did you mean Strategy:Editor Trends Study/Results? That lead to meta:Research:Projects/Wikipedia Editors Survey 2011, which as far as I know is still ongoing, and comments for it are on Strategy:Editor survey feedback. If that doesn't answer though, please use another {{helpme}}.  Chzz  ►  09:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you say my father, Paul Karslake, is not notable in the town of Leigh-on-Sea? I can prove that he is a fellow of the FRSA, and all the other queries you have on his history. I also have proof that the Evening Standard Enviroment Award is also an award, and if you would like this and more proof that my father is "notable" contact me at [redacted]

I would also like to add that you do not seem to have your own WP page, and that hundreds of picture's do not come up when I type in your name on Google... So, excuse me for asking, but who are you?

Edward Karslake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ted Karslake (talk • contribs) 23:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been involved at Talk:Paul Karslake, but I noticed this message and am replying. I removed your email address because we communicate via the wiki on matters like this (for really confidential issues, it is possible to click "Email this user" if the two users each have registered an email address—however, it would be unwise to reply to unsolicited emails as to do so would reveal the sender's email address, which can lead to problems).

When commenting, please stick to the issue and state the matter calmly. It is not helpful to ask "who are you?" because that has no bearing on the issue. The discussion at Talk:Paul Karslake is typical of that which occurs at many articles: certain questions were asked, and some of the details raised remain unanswered. It's not important as no one is proposing any action regarding the article. However, if you have any useful references, please add them to the article, or if you prefer (and recommended by WP:COI for descriptive text), add them to the article talk page and in due course other editors can consider how to use that material.

Regarding "proof": That can be difficult because Wikipedia relies on published reliable sources. For example, the receiver of an award may be holding the actual award, but for an article to mention it, the award would have to be referenced in a reliable source that can be verified by other editors (so email between a few editors is not sufficient). We understand that it is very likely that someone has an award, yet verifying that may not be possible. The questions on the article talk page were actually addressing the procedures used at Wikipedia, rather than the subject of the article. Johnuniq (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael. I listed this at peer review because I thought it would lie there for weeks before someone picked it up. However, it was retrieved in seconds by User:Tim riley for whom I did the peer review for his Elgar article some time ago that later passed FA. There is no hurry for this PR and there are no deadlines, but I'm just letting you know in case you would want to help out with some tweaks. I am flying to the UK (Barnards Green) on 19 July and will be staying for 2 months. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]