Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

You calmly admit you are NOT a chemist, yet you presume to comment on the contributions of a particular chemist to the study of kinetic isotope effects, intramolecular or otherwise? With respect, let's leave editing of articles related to science and scientists (other than simply copy editing for grammar and punctuation) to the scientists who contribute here, and leave the copy editors in their place: to edit copy for factual, grammatical, or punctuational error. You have no more business indicating what is good science, bad science, notable science, or even useful science, than I have directing a film or conducting an orchestra! Further, the continued insistence on counting citations - no matter that the searches for same are often superficial at best, as journals list authors in many different naming conventions - as a substitute for genuine scholarship - again, by copy editors, it would often appear, who are experts in their fields I am sure, but darned straight not necessarily in mine - is highly problematic.

As this is, of course, a talk page, you (or anyone)can delete this comment at will. I do suggest, with respect, some thinking take place as you do. Some of the scientists you all have selected for deletion of recent have been nominated for the Prize more than once, despite relatively scanty publication records measured against the science factories that often produce high volume at the expense of insight or quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.22.222 (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about--could you clarify what article you're talking about or what action of mine you're objecting to? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently 0 articles in the backlog. You can help us! Join the September 2010 drive today!

The Guild of Copy-Editors – September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invite you to participate in the September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 September at 23:59 (UTC). The goals for this drive are to eliminate 2008 from the queue and to reduce the backlog to fewer than 5,000 articles. Sign-up has already begun at the September drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page. Before you begin copy-editing, please carefully read the instructions on the main drive page. Please make sure that you know how to copy-edit, and be familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Awards and barnstars A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GoCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page. Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive! — ɳorɑfʈ Talk! and S Masters (talk).

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive! The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invites you to participate in the November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 November at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 November at 23:59 (UTC). The goal for this drive is to reduce the backlog by 10% (approximately 500 articles). We hope to focus our efforts on the oldest three months (January, February, and March 2009) and the newest three months (September, October, and November 2010) of articles in the queue. Sign-up has already begun at the November drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page. Before you begin copy-editing, please carefully read the instructions on the main drive page. Please make sure that you know how to copy-edit, and be familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Awards and barnstars A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants, some of which are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page. Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive! — The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions, S Masters (talk), and Diannaa (Talk)

Season's Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2010. Read all about these in the Guild's 2010 Year-End Report. Highlights Membership grows to 503 editors 2,589 articles removed through four Backlog elimination drives Our encounter with Jimbo Wales Guild home pages reorganized and redesigned Report on our inaugural elections Guild Plans for 2011 New barnstars introduced Requests page improved Sign up for the January 2011 Backlog elimination drive! Get your copy of the Guild's 2010 Year-End Report here On behalf of the Guild, we take this opportunity to wish you Season's Greetings and Happy New Year. See you in 2011! – Your Coordinators: S Masters (lead), Diannaa, The Utahraptor, and Tea with toast.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nuujinn. I'd like to let you know that I'm abandoning the IP address I've been using (as it is a public IP address that others could use) and will be shifting to an account. I created the account a while ago, but never used it much, having mostly edited as an IP. If you see any more edits made by this IP, it wasn't me who made them. 116.199.211.49 (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This account - Seed of Azathoth - is the one I will be using exclusively from now on. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to see you will be using an account, it does make things easier in terms of knowing who one is talking to! --Nuujinn (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the Camille Paglia article: I'd like to suggest a couple of books that could be used as sources. Elaine Showalter's Inventing Herself discusses Paglia's life and career, and there's a recent book French Theory by Francois Cusset and Jeff Fort about French theory in America that discusses Paglia's view of Derrida, Foucault and co. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to seeing what you bring to the article from those sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I suggested those books because I thought you might be interested in using them, in case I can't find the time (Carl Rollyson and Lisa Paddock's biography of Susan Sontag should be another good source). But I'll probably add something from them soon if you don't want to look them up yourself. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, I have two dozen journal articles to sift through, but I'll keep them in mind. Thanks for the pointers. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some material from Cusset's book - there's much more that could be included, and if you're looking for a critical perspective on Paglia, it's definitely a good source. You can search inside the text of French Theory on Amazon, by the way. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment at RS noticeboard. I think what you said would be true if the TEXT was about what the journalist had said. But in fact it was supporting TWO CLAIMS. One that the journalist said this (which I do not doubt), but leaving the reader to believe a second claim that the journalist got it right, because we assume that journalists usually do. But we (the editors of Wikipedia) know for a fact that this is not true, and that this journalist on this occasion got it wrong. I could add text to refute the claim the journalist made but that just makes it messy. We should simply delete it because the reference being used was NOT RELIABLE. In fact its ore than just "not reliable" we know that the source got it completely wrong. Wikipedia editors should not be in the business of being clever with words to present a falsehood as undisputed whilst stay withing the rules. We have higher standards than that. Could you reconsider please? Please reply at the noticeboard where I have left a similar comment.Hauskalainen (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors January 2011 backlog elimination drive Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors January 2011 Backlog elimination drive! The drive is halfway over, so here are some mid-drive stats. Participation So far, 43 people have signed up for this drive. Of these, 25 have participated. If you signed up for the drive but haven't participated yet, it's not too late! Try to copy edit at least a few articles. Remember, if you have rollover words from the last drive, you will lose them if you do not participate in this drive. If you haven't signed up for the drive yet, you can sign up now. Progress report We have eliminated two months from the backlog – January and February 2009. One of our goals is to eliminate as many months as possible from the 2009 backlog. Please help us reduce the size of this part of the backlog if you haven't already. Another goal is to reduce the entire backlog by 10%, or by 515 articles. Currently, we have eliminated 375 articles from the queue, so if each participant copy edits four more articles, we will reach that goal. Thank you for participating in the January 2011 drive. We anticipate it will be another big success! Your drive coordinators –S Masters (talk), Diannaa (Talk), The UtahraptorTalk to me, and Tea with toast (Talk)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 20:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

My apologies, but the statement "most assertions are opinions, so that's not an issu" does not justify inserting a statement of opinion as if it were a fact. Opinions are ok if they are tagged to a source ("source xx says that..."), but even then, when it's possible to simply state the facts instead of rephrasing it as an opinion, that is preferable. Geoffrey.landis (talk)

I answered you on the article's talk page, per BRD (or, rather in this case, BRRD). --Nuujinn (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you apparently didn't bother to read my edits to Food faddism before reverting them. I did not commit vandalism, and I did not introduce a non-neutral POV to the article. Rather, I removed the non-neutral POV that mendaciously implies that caloric restriction leads to sustainable weight loss, a claim for which there is not a scrap of evidence and never has been. 85.178.76.98 (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did read your edits, and the edit summary that you used indicated that because you believe what the source is attributed to say is not true, that source is not reliable. That is not our policy, please read WP:RS. Your opinion and mine do not count, you will need to provide reliable sources to support the edits you wish to make. Also, please see WP:BRD--you made a change, you were reverted, the next step is to discuss, rather than continue a cycle of reversion. Please bring such sources to the article's talk page for discussion. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to determine what exactly the source says, since it's only available offline. Does the source merely say that there's no evidence fad diets work? That's fine. Or does the source actually assert that evidence exists that caloric restriction leads to long-term, sustainable weight loss? If so, what are his sources for that claim? Does the source explicitly exclude caloric-restriction diets like Okinawa and CRON from its definition of "fad diet"? You're right, your and my personal opinions don't matter to the article, but if the source is being misrepresented in the article, or if the source itself is misrepresenting the facts, that does matter to the article. 85.178.76.98 (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you are simply incorrect. A minute of googling resulting in an online abstract from the article in question. It is in fact a copy of the text, so we have to clean that up, but it all to accurately reflects the source. It's also a primary source, so we should see to find additional sources, but please do not assume that we cannot get access to sources--there's no requirement whatsoever that a source need be available online, and many of us have access to research libraries. To assert that we do not know what the article says and thus we must recast the assertions based on what we know is a violation of WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:AGF. Very bad juju. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only meant myself when I said "It's hard to determine what exactly the source says, since it's only available offline". I know perfectly well there's no requirement that sources be online; I've written a featured article myself with almost exclusively dead-tree sources that don't even have online abstracts. However, if you read Katz's abstract carefully, you'll see he never claims that calorie restriction diets work; he only claims that non-calorie restriction diets don't. 85.178.76.98 (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and not that he's not a particularly good source for us, since this is a complex issue and from all appearances he's a primary source. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your posting on this - I've replied (at length - can't shut me up once I get started on this) on my talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your question about BLP ("only permits negative material when there's really a good reason for including it"): this is, of course, the point of due weight, which BLP requires us to strictly observe. Same goes for positive material, of course. Seed of Azathoth (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]