User talk:High-storian/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, High-storian! Thank you for your contributions. I am Me, Myself, and I are Here and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. 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
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Me, Myself & I (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Me, Myself, and I are Here LOL! Chocolate chip! How nice!! High-storian (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. (If you have more complex questions, though, I actually recommend going to the Teahouse or the Help desk. I have little to no expertise beyond what I've shared with you. I just wanted to give you a plate of cookies before the senior users used the standard welcome. )

User:Me, Myself, and I are Here No problem. You showed me a few key tricks and that cheat sheet was a good help. It had some links to just what I was looking for on the different options for tagging things. That's also a great help. The cookies were a cute idea. High-storian (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Congrats... You created your Teahouse profile!

	Welcome to the Teahouse Badge
	Awarded to editors who have introduced themselves at the Wikipedia Teahouse. Guest editors with this badge show initiative and a great drive to learn how to edit Wikipedia. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
Welcome, High-storian. I'm one of those senior editors that Me, Myself, and I are Here was referring to...but I wanted to send you something other than a standard greeting! Feel free to get in touch with me or other hosts at the Teahouse if you have questions about editing or contributing. : ) I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Kahun Gynaecological Papyrus

As far as I can see this is not literature - in the sense of creative fiction. It's more like a medical textbook. It sits happily in Category:Ancient Egyptian medical works with other texts of a similar kind. Rathfelder (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: Agreed, this is certainly not literature. I think my objection was to the loss of {{Ancient Egyptian medicine}} (which may have been an accident) and [[Category:Ancient Egyptian medicine]]. As for [[Category:Ancient Egyptian literature]] and [[Category:Medical literature]], you are correct. This is not literature, nor is it current Medical literature, which is implied in the latter category. I probably should have looked the edit over a little more closely and simply re-added the {{Ancient Egyptian medicine}} by hand, rather than doing a revert. My bad. I'll be more careful about that in the future. Thanks! Hi-storian (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian medical works is a sub category of {{Ancient Egyptian medicine}}. The idea is to push stuff down into the most specialised categories.Rathfelder (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: Um, I think you meant [[Category:Ancient Egyptian medicine]], not {{Ancient Egyptian medicine}}. {{Ancient Egyptian medicine}} creates the menu of links at the bottom of the page. That should be kept. That's what alerted me to check the edits in the first place. Hi-storian (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello again

Firstly, thank you for the kitten! I love cats, and it brightened my day considerably. I am trying to figure out how to make my own template with puppies. I've been seeing you on all the medical articles I've been editing (one article just leads to the other, I'm afraid). I know your topics of interest mostly concern the history of medicine, but I was wondering if you would be interested in helping with the following articles:

• Technological and industrial history of Canada
• Technological and industrial history of 20th-century Canada
• Technological and industrial history of 21st-century Canada
• Invention in Canada
• Natural scientific research in Canada

I only ask because I know you do a lot of reference work, and the references on these articles are few and far between, outdated, and oddly formatted. I stumbled on these a long time ago, and very few people are editing it – mostly bots and other gnomes, and I think that fresh input from an actual historian might help. Of course, there is absolutely no obligation, and if you have no interest, feel free to ignore me. Happy editing, and have a nice rest of your day! Me, Myself & I (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Me, Myself, and I are Here: Thanks! I'm a cat person myself, but I agree that a puppies option would be a natural addition to the WikiLove function. I can certainly see that this can be tedious, robotic work, at times, and with the susceptibility of Wikipedia to vandalism, some times even discouraging. With 5 million articles, there's far more here than one could ever read in a lifetime, let alone clean up and sort out and try to enforce some sort of professionalism. It would be easy to let yourself become overwhelmed. That's why I actually like the idea of WikiLove ... it's certainly good to be able to recognize each other and show our appreciation of users who are doing the difficult and thankless work of cleaning up the tiny mistakes that we tend to overlook, but give the page a less than professional look and detract (on a subconscious level) from its credibility.

As for your articles, I think what I'll do is take them "under advisement" for the time being. It does sound like a worthy topic that could use some help. The technological achievements of Canada always tend to be eclipsed by those of the States, and I do believe it's important to recognize their achievements in their own right.

At the moment, I'm working on a history of a major hospital in the States that played a few key roles in the history of medicine. I came to Wikipedia for a quick read on the history of medicine so I can put my main project in a proper context. Unfortunately what I found is that these articles seem to be quite poor, tending to have little to no appropriate resources behind them. One section, in particular, appears to have been written or heavily edited by a schoolchild at one point, as many "references" are children's books or schoolchildren's websites. I realize that I've stumbled into more work than I was expecting, and that my tone and approach are worthy of caution. I fear I may have to educate the existing user pool on what credible sources are and even why its good to have them, in the first place. How I do that, however, may be critical, as if I strike the wrong tone, I could offend the existing pool, or be written off by them as a nitpicker or some such. So I'm certainly proceeding with caution. The Teahouse did point me in the right direction for Wikipedia's guidelines on resources, so that's certainly helpful.

I think right now, what I need to do is get myself a few good published books on the history of medicine for my context, and bring what I find back to Wikipedia as a side project. What I don't want to do is get over involved in what is already a sidetrack from my main project and let myself get derailed from my main goals. But I definitely feel the need to be well-read on the history of medicine before I get too deep in the main project, lest I wind up displaying my ignorance in a way that many amateur histories are wont to do. That said, there's no reason why cleaning up the Wikipedia articles can't be a part of my research process, though as they say, all things in moderation.

I will need to set limits on my scope, lest I find myself in a never-ending recursive loop, never making progress on my end goal. I think my limits on history of medicine, as the articles are currently structured, will be about 3-4 levels deep. It seems to be at that layer where the key facts are being set out, and the levels above that are distillations of the layers below them, which is exactly as it should be. The problem, however, is that it seems the upper layers were written, first, then somebody Googled for "sources" and threw in the first match they found, rather than build the article properly. That said, there is some evidence of the layered approach being used, as well. For example, I found in Egyptian medical papyri a reference of op. cit., with no indication of the book being referenced in the article anywhere ... a totally meaningless reference. I found that the reference was cut and pasted from Kahun Gynaecological Papyrus, where the book was identified, so I was able to build a proper citation out of it, and bring that back to Egyptian medical papyri. Now the cutting and pasting of references is, in fact, a good practice if the same point is being made in both articles. What it shows, however, is the danger of an op. cit. citation in a Wikipedia context. Wikipedia content is too dynamic for op. cit. or ibid. cites.

(sigh) Well, I fear I may be preaching to the choir, here, so I think I'll end on that note. I appreciate you hearing me out on all of this. I guess I feel that you've been rather constructive, supportive and helpful, and that you seem to have the experience to be able to relate to what I'm saying. And as a writer, I know that the process of writing can help one sort their thoughts out and clarify them. So basically, that's what I'm doing here. But also, we're working on the same field of articles, so it's also good for us to understand what we're doing and where we're coming from, so we can continue to work constructively together in a coordinated way, rather than unintentionally stepping on each others work. So that's another reason for saying to much to you.

BTW, I've got a question for you. I like the "show preview" function on the editor, but when editing references, it's basically of no use, as the ref is contained in the text, but displayed by a template function at the end of the article, which you don't see when editing a section of text. Have you found any work-arounds to this? I find myself making a huge number of edits, and looking like I'm spamming the article with edits, when what I'm actually trying to do is check what I've done, and going back and correcting mistakes ... which is what "show preview" is perfect for. I guess I could make the edit on the entire page rather than the section, but for large articles, that's just too unwieldy for practical use. Any thoughts or suggestions?

Thanks again for your kindness and thoughtful helpfulness. Hi-storian (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you for that detailed response. That's a definite maybe then? The problem with the articles on Canada is that they are very detailed and meticulous, but far too long, and the references are too old – half of the links are broken or missing. I can see why most other people might avoid it, and should you ever get around to editing it, the people of Canada thank you. I have spent hours on fixing just the small errors (typos like naissant→nascent and adding archives – thank goodness for the Wayback Machine), and there are still much left to do. I'll get around to rescuing what's left of the references soon to make it easier for future editors.

I feel bad about deleting other people's references, especially if they might be children and they don't know better. Some articles use other Wikipedia articles as references, which is acceptable under certain circumstances according to Wikipedia policy, but can be very, very dangerous. However, I usually just fix syntax errors and formatting errors, as that is simpler than going through and reading the (often) 200+ citations in an article and vetting every single one. I somewhat selfishly leave the vetting and updating to Wikipedians like you. I think I am relatively unqualified to perform any definitive evaluations of most sources, and I probably will learn a lot from you!

Personally, I just edit section by section so people can revert easily. I'll admit that I have to clean up after myself frequently. People are supposed to assume good faith, and your edits are very helpful to the project. Editing the entire page of large articles is frustratingly impractical, and I have not yet found a very good way to work around it. I suggest pasting references in your sandbox to preview if you just want to make sure you typed it out correctly, and you can use various citation scripts and software like the AutoWikiBrowser to help you with more repetitive edits (for AWB, once you meet the requirements – 250 non-automated edits in mainspace or 500 total edits to mainspace). (I have AWB downloaded, but I prefer to edit the normal way – I usually use it to find typos and duplicate wikilinks. I don't trust myself around scripts – I can barely draw pictures in JS.) For advice on using those, I will suggest asking the authors of the scripts or asking on the talk page/Village pump, as I am a novice in those areas. Sorry I can't be more helpful there. Happy editing! Me, Myself & I (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Me, Myself, and I are Here: LOL! A definite maybe sounds about right. It sounds like something that I could be helpful at, and would like to do, but just not right now. Once I have the bulk of the workload on this project done, I'll likely have the time to take a serious look at it and I'd love to do just that. One thing I find is that taking the time to use "cite web" and filling in as many blanks as you can, especially |website=, which should be the title of the website (and not necessarily the root of the webserver, which may actually be |publisher=) can be very helpful. That way, when dead links happen, you have some text from the actual website that you can Google against, and perhaps locate a very similar URL that the website moved to, years ago. That is always preferable to going to Wayback, but I've certainly used it when it's clear the website is no longer with us. On Wayback, I go to the last archive that was taken of the page in question, before it went 404 on us.

As to deleting references, I've only done it once, so far, and I hope not to have to do so again. It was a case where the reference literally was a joke. It was a link to a fansite for a popular SciFi comedy about a mythical encyclopedia. Users were encouraged to add funny entries for this imaginary book. I first tagged it for a few days, in case there was a live user behind it, then deleted it outright. As for children's references, for the moment, I'm keeping them, preferring to get a sense of how widespread the problem is. At the moment, it seems to have been a single article. Once I have a better idea of what I'm dealing with, I would prefer to kindly educate the users and encourage them to seek out better sources ... assuming that they're still with Wikipedia, in the first place. Perhaps if they are, they've grown a few years, and may be better suited to take their old work up a notch. If they're gone, and my talk page posts meet deafening silence, well then, there's no one there to insult, and then I can axe the references without guilt or offending anyone. What if someone edited something you did as a child? Would it really matter to you? Perhaps you've moved on, and are no longer interested in the subject. Even if you are, you'd understand that as a child, you could only do so much, so you could appreciate that someone thought enough of your work to have taken the time to improve it.

As for your limiting your edits, and leave certain things for others to do ... that's not selfish of you at all! Don't even use that word in that way. I just wrote a long reply to someone in Teahouse trying to defend his practice of Googling for the first available reference he could find. What I did was explain that while I understood where he was coming from, and that he had good intentions, that what he was doing was, in fact, not the best thing to do. So I wrote a long explanation of what professionalism is, why it's important, and how professionals work. I encouraged him to be professional in his work. You, on the other hand, are already being a professional. You're doing what you're confident in doing. You're not doing what you're not sure about. That's professionalism. Don't ever confuse it with being "selfish". If you're curious and have the time, my comments are at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Looking for guidelines on good references. You'll want to skip down to where the indents return to zero, starting with "I don't think the problem is ... " I think you'll recognize and appreciate what I've said ... because you've shown me nothing but the best professionalism. I hope you can see yourself in it, too, and stop using words like "selfish" do describe how you work.

On the use of Wikipedia as a source, I'll point you to WP:CIRCULAR which clearly says not to do it, and that the link you referred to is the exception, rather than the rule. Citogenesis is exactly why Wikipedia is not a reliable source, nor can it ever be. It is, by definition a tertiary source. See WP:WPNOTRS for more on why Wikipedia cannot be its own source.

In regards to learning to evaluate sources, I'd love to help you on that. That's definitely something I can do for you. It's very much with in line with the work I'm doing with history of medicine, because to move the entire subject forward, I need to somehow educate the existing user pool on just that. So I'd gladly start with you on that.

And lastly, yes, thanks for reassuring me that no, I'm not missing something obvious, and there's really no easy clean way to do things better than I have been. I'll continue what I'm doing, and if someone objects, I'll just ask them if they know of a better way to do it. Maybe I'll learn something, or maybe they'll realize that they have no good answer and just quietly go away. But I'm doing the best I can, and asking questions, and that's the most anyone can expect.

Thanks, again, for being so friendly and helpful. I'm glad to have run into a WP:GNOME rather than a meta:TROLL! I will certainly see you around.Hi-storian (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! You're too kind. I will no longer use that word.

I am guilty as charged with website/server conflation. In my beginner days as an IP, when I expanded references, I would put publisher, work and website with almost indiscriminately. I hope that I haven't made too much of a mess. With Wayback, I tend to either use the latest viable source or the one closest to the accessdate if one exists in case there were drastic changes to the page.

What's interesting about Wikipedia is that it is sort of self-aware about its unreliability. It explicitly states in Wikipedia:Research help not to cite it for research and instead cite the reliable sources, there are essays telling us that we don't need to trust it, and warning us in bold that it is not considered an authoritative source so I'm not sure why anyone would think otherwise. I looked at the article I mentioned and someone had already replaced the circular references with outside sources. Awesome!

The Teahouse discussion is a long one! You've been busy. I will read that carefully when I have the time. These insights are valuable to to everyone if they wish to properly do academic study.

Finally, let me thank you for being such a devoted and enthusiastic learner and contributor. I don't think I've done half as much as you did when I joined. In fact, if you look at my contribs, they're mostly minor, and there's a three-year hiatus between account creation and first edit (I was intimidated by the daunting task of improving Wikipedia. I felt that as an IP, my many errors were more easily spotted, but eventually I came back). I'm glad that I found you before a (potential) troll came and scared you off, and that I have been able to convince you to join the Wikipedia community – it's better off with you in it. There are not that many trolls – mostly helpful and kind people here in my experience, but that's just because I keep to the shadows. Me, Myself & I (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Me, Myself, and I are Here: You're welcome. I tend to call things as I see them. As for website/webserver ... I much more appreciate the fact that you tried, and expanded some old naked URLs when they were still live, then if you got that detail right, or not. Not many people understand the distinction, so you were far from alone. As for Wikipedia's self-awareness, it's actually a key part of how Wikipedia came to be, in the first place. Before Wikipedia, there was a project called Nupedia. It was a miserable failure. It tried to build an online encyclopedia the old-fashioned way ... with a formal editorial review process by subject matter experts. Only 25 articles were published, and less than 100 were drafted, total. Wikipedia was founded to also do an open-source encyclopedia, but without the editorial review process. That was the difference between the two. You can see which one survived. But since Wikipedia does not have a review process, it cannot make any claim to accuracy. The only assurance of accuracy are the article references. References are always crucial in the academic world, but for Wikipedia, there's even that much more weight on them. That's also why I can't use a single "fact" from Wikipedia in my project. Wikipedia succeeded on quantity, not quality. Wikipedia's quality has improved, through the years, but only through the dedicated efforts of people like us, not through any doing on their part. It is, in fact, the original vision of their founders. It is a crowd-sourced project. And yes, that crowd can include trolls. Seen them, and walked away a number of times. Of course, there was also the time period when vandalism completely overran Wikipedia. I still don't think they realize the vandals were mostly kids. Just getting a 10-year-old thrill by adding an X-rated word in an article for all the world to see. But that's mostly been gotten under control, now. At any rate, I figure it's worth an experiment to see if at least one little corner of Wikipedia is ready to step up its game, or not. If it is, great, if not, oh, well. I'm not going to get too emotionally involved. The way I see it, it will get there, eventually. If not now, maybe give it a few more years. In the end, it's only a hobby. A useful one, nonetheless, but a hobby, still. Hi-storian (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I really hate to spam you with replies, so I'll leave it off at here for now. I've heard of Nupedia: I read through the history and criticism of Wikipedia pages, and it got a mention. Citizendium's doing a little better than Nupedia, but it's nowhere near as ubiquitous and comprehensive (that's the quantity over quality thing again), though it is a great deal more reliable. Wikipedia's a good starting point, and a worthwhile project to work on. Improving its quality will benefit quite a lot of people. And you're absolutely right: it is just a hobby. Some people (weasel words?) may take editing a little too seriously, and I may be a little too deep into the Wikipedihol for my own good myself. I wish every article was feature-level (by that I mean the quality of a professional encyclopedia), though I can't really help with content, I know so little; I see errors and I want to fix them, though I know that fixing them all is an impossible task. Wikipedia is a perpetual work in progress, and I might as well face it. I haven't met any trolls, though I have seen them harassing others and generally being up to no good. There are thankfully not too many. (I kind of like the occasional vandals. They're easy to revert and they just come and post something that is somewhat funny and leave. Their edit summaries are sometimes rather honest: one I came across blanked a page with the edit summary "Replaced content with 'I am awesome'". Lo and behold, that is what they did.)

Anyway, I've gone on long enough. Here's to future collaboration! Me, Myself & I (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Me, Myself, and I are Here: LOL! I love your sense of humor. It's quite like my own. And your honesty is very refreshing. Don't worry about spamming me. If I have time to look at something and reply, I will. If I don't, I won't. Simple as that. If I'm working on a series of edits on an article, I'll stick with that until I'm done. Then I'll come up for air and check what replies I've gotten. I do have my main project to focus on, now that the holidays are over ... but I'll certainly be checking in when I find the time. There is an sort of instant gratification to making some edits and seeing the results immediately. Just try to keep your work here in balance with the rest of your life. I may wind up spamming you from time to time, when I find the time. If you don't respond for a few days or longer, that's totally fine. I know I'll hear back when you find the time in your world. Simple enough. But yes, it's time to close this thread and start a new one. Looking forward to working with you. Hi-storian (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Haven't seen you around for some time. Wishing you well. Enjoy this kitten!

Me, Myself & I (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Me, Myself, and I are Here:Awwwww!! Thanks! They're so cute at this age ... I can just hear that pathetic little "mew?" ... looking around, uncertain about this big, wide world thing ... but don't hold her too long ... she still needs the safety of her nest and mommy, who's certainly watching us with a bit of smug pride on her face.

Anyhow, how have you been doing? I haven't been myself the past week or so. I can't seem to wake up for most of the day ... it's been difficult to keep focused, finding myself napping a lot. I think it's a medication problem ... it's sort of been building up since I started a new med nearly a month ago. Fortunately, I have an appointment Tues. and we'll see if we can get that straightened out. Sorry to keep you waiting, but I think it's best to hold off until I'm a bit more focused. I have a good idea on what I want to say and do, but I want to be sure that I'm in shape to last long enough and to be focused enough to do a good job and be clear in what I'm saying. These things can be confusing enough, let alone to try to learn something from someone's who's somewhat confused, himself. Don't want to be a bad professor.

In the meantime, I've been thinking ... what I'd like to do after we wrap up our discussion is to take what you've learned and put it into practice. The first round of heavy-duty editing I'm going to do is on the series of articles on Ancient Egyptian medicine. I'm going to use a ground-up approach, starting with the available evidence, and building up to the main article and the summary paragraph. I'm skipping over Prehistoric medicine because I simply can not find good references on the subject ... it'll take quite a bit more research and there are a lot more challenges, so I'm going to save it for later. But the Egyptian era does have some readily available good references that I'm quite satisfied with, and I don't see too many challenges, as long as we stick with the ground-up technique.

If you're game, what I'd like to do is work with you and edit these articles together, and give you a feel for how I work and a chance to try it out yourself with someone there to give you some helpful, constructive feedback to help you build your confidence. If you're okay with the subject, then my best advice for the moment is to hit your local library and see what books you can find on Ancient Egyptian medicine. That's always the first step in tackling a new subject ... read up on it, first. Get all the books you can find, it probably won't be more than 2 or 3 titles, at most, in the circulating collection. (Frankly, there just aren't that many books on the subject currently in print.) Then sit down and write up the cites for them. In addition, what I'd like you to do is include the total number of pages in the book, and then the number of pages used by the References section of the book. Depending on the author and publisher, this may be a Notes section, or a Bibliography or a Further Reading section. Note down what type of section is used, and notice the differences between the various styles. Then take a few moments to take a quick look through the book. Don't try to read it just yet, just take a quick glance through it. What pops up at you? Pictures? Maps? Tables? Section headings? Chapter titles? Just try and get a brief sense of what's in that particular book ... or what's not in it. Go through each book and get that quick sense. Then take a few minutes and write a brief summary of what your sense of each book is. Is is a good reference? Bad? So-so? Uncertain? Try to put into words why you feel that way. What are the pluses for that book? The minuses? Remember, you're not writing a book report ... you're just giving a quick sense of how you feel about that book from a quick glance of it. I want to hear your gut reactions. Sometimes, your gut is the best guide you can have. But I also want you to explore why you had that gut reaction. What was it about the book that turned you off or on about it? Then, pick one of the books to start reading. Which one did you pick, and why? Which one do you think you'll read next, and why? Then ... go to it! Knock your self out and see what you can learn!

BTW, I do want to be honest and say that some of the pictures can be a bit graphic ... I really don't know if this subject is for you, or not, only you can tell. Keep in mind that the Egyptians did mummify their dead, and the remains do indeed tell us some important things about the extent of their medical knowledge and practice. Some people may be a bit sqeamish about that kind of thing, while others find it cool and fascinating. Also, the ancient Egyptians did not have the same sense of shame about the body that our culture does. That lack of shame sometimes shows itself in the form of brutal honesty in depicting the body just as it is. If any of this makes you feel the least bit uncomfortable, that's fine ... we can pick another topic to work on, together. I'd rather have you comfortable with the material we're working with, and let you concentrate on what we're studying than to have you distracted by things that are just not your cup of tea. I'll admit, there are some things that make me sqeamish, and I just can't watch or look at, no matter how much I want to. So I can understand if this hits you that way, and I can respect that. As I said, I do want to be honest and upfront about that.

So, if you're okay with this, great! If not, well, then, pick a subject you'd rather work on, and do the same exact thing I just described on that subject. What I'll do then, in that case, is I'll go ahead and start editing the ancient Egypt articles, and I'll involve you just with Egyptian medical papyri ... which isn't gruesome, and is enough to show you what I'm looking at and how I work, and then you can start working on your subject ... sound fair?

All right, then. I'm going to go and take care of myself. Hopefully, I'll be in better shape next weekend. Either way, I've given you enough to do ... pick a topic, find some books, look 'em over, write your first impressions, and then get started. All while you've got the rest of your life to deal with. You do have a life, don't you? <- Me ... no comment. LOL. At any rate, sorry to leave you hanging there. This problem started building up on me and took me by surprise. But glad I had a chance to find a way to keep you involved while I recover. Take care and we'll be back in touch soon. Hi-storian (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh noes! I do hope you feel better soon. There's no rush – take as much time as you need. I'm glad you like the kitten...You did say you were a cat person, no? Let the kitten keep you company in my stead. She's warmer and fuzzier than I am in person, anyway.

As for the project preposition, I do have a life that I may be procrastinating things in. Just a little. I probably won't get to it for a rather long time. This project is just the thing I need to get some practical experience, though, so get to it I must. And for graphic images? No problem! I enjoy reading modern medical journals and viewing slideshows of various invasive medical procedures. I'm sure the images in Egyptian medicine aren't too much worse than those. I suppose I can also start checking the references of those technology in Canada articles too. So many things to do, so little time...

Anyway, take care! Illegitimi non carborundum (the illegitimi in question being whatever ails you)! Me, Myself & I (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Me, Myself, and I are Here: No problem ... I'll manage. (Yawn) Still waking up from my last nap. Yes, I most certainly am a cat person. As for being warmer and fuzzier, well, I certainly hope so! You are human, aren't you?? BTW, I know you're young (then again, I am an old geezer) but I'm not quite sure how young. College? High school? Younger? Older? Just trying to get a sense of where you're at so I can try to tailor things appropriately. I don't want to be talking over your head or way below you.

As for me, well, I definitely have an interest in medicine and anatomy, but my "thing" that I can't handle is blood. Sorry, I can't say why, but I just can't handle it. I'm fine with dissections and autopsies, and perhaps videos taken through an endoscope, but the moment that blood enters the picture (unless it's microscopic, which is fine) I just can't take it. I'd never make it through med school, which is just so funny, because I'd really love to do a dissection. Okay, so I was not a fan of the worm or the frog in high school. But, man, those were worms and frogs, you know?? A human's another story! Go figure. So, yes, I have my quirks, and I can certainly understand you if you have any. But you seem to be okay with it. I just wanted to warn you, just in case. I did run across a couple pics of a 2nd Intermediate Period pharaoh who met his end with several battle axes ... the kind of image that stays with you if you're not ready for that kind of thing. Certainly nightmare material. But for me, no blood ... I'm fine. But for some people, I can understand that it'd be rather unsettling.

As for the tech in Canada, my first impression is that I think it's going to be a bit more of a challenge than you may expect. It's a localized subset of a broader topic (history of tech) and I doubt you'll find references that are already localized. What you'd be working with are mostly history of tech (on a global basis) and teasing out Canadian items, or histories of Canada (especially businesses in Canada) and teasing out tech items. It's what I call a two-track subject, that is, you'd be working both the history in tech track and the history of Canadian businesses track at the same time. Of course, there are plenty of "history of tech in America" titles out there, but as you must know, for "America" read "U.S." and that's pretty much why I agree that a Canadian project's worth doing! My thought was to try to take a topic that's a bit easier to research, first, to get the process down without having to struggle for sources, then move on to this as a harder challenge.

For myself, my own project's turned into a two-tracker ... I realized that for my hospital history project to come out right, I have to also tell the history of medicine alongside of the hospital's history. There's just too much interaction for me not to be fully proficient in the broader worldwide history of medicine. Actually, it's a three-track project, the third being the history of the city that the hospital's in, as they both "grew up" together, but the city history is something I'm already very proficient in.

BTW, you got me on the "Latin". I thought it was legitimate until I realized that I really didn't have a clue as to what "carborundum" was. Then I clicked on it. Yeah, right. "carborundum". Yeah, the Romans certainly used a lot of that with their power tools. And their chainsaws. And steam shovels. (Shaking head) Yeah, you got me. Your scents of humor is starting to smell, my friend. And I do not mean roses! LOL

Well, thanks for brightening my day. I guess I needed it. Things will get better, just take it one day at a time, and don't sweat the small stuff. Always good to keep things in perspective. Take care! Hi-storian (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

P.S.: Why do I have the children's song "Paul Bunyan" stuck in my head?? Don't you hate when that happens?? Hi-storian (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! I suppose I can start with the ancient medicine articles (once I have the time) and work my way up. My squeamishness, for some reason, is reserved for sluglike molluscs. To see one oozing about, writhing in it own mucous-slathered body – I should probably stop before I squick myself out. Perhaps I should tread carefully in case a slug gets into the pages of one of my research books. As for blood, I used to be squeamish about it, but I lost that somehow. It's a pathogenic biohazard, but I find the colour is so rich and beautiful, even if the smell leaves something to be desired. (Some people in meatspace think I'm a bit odd because of that. I like to think of it as just being appreciative of the erythrocytes that give us life.) The diversity in human fears and aversions is most fascinating, is it not?

My age does show, doesn't it? It must be all that effusiveness and lack of a work history. As for my education level, not more than college level, please. There's Advanced Placement and then there's real college, which I am not at yet. I do hope that I'm not too juvenile to teach complex concepts to.

Don't you just love Dog Latin? I hope don't offend the linguistic prescriptivists/purists. I could have swapped carborundum with silicon carbide for a personal touch, but that isn't very faux-Latiny. So my scents of humour is displeasing, hmm? I am inclined to concur. One might even call it...odious. It positively reeks of puerility.

Huh. My punnage is not as good as I thought.

Please ignore that pitiful attempt at punnery, and arrivederci, au revoir, bonsoir and good wishes. (Je sais que c'est un peu bizarre quand on mélange les langages différents d'une telle manière, mais c'est acceptable pour une discussion sur les langues, non?) Have a nice break and don't come back until you're refreshed!

P.S.: Don't get that stuck in my head too! That's just cruel! (I just had to search it up...) Me, Myself & I (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ugh! Slugs. And snails ... with iridescent shells ... okay, that's up there. But I'll take 'em over a blood oozing surgical incision. I do like a dark red color, but dry, on a solid object, thank you. Not ooozing, like a slug. Okay, I better stop before we squick each other out, now.

As far as age goes, I most certainly don't consider you juvenile in the least. Au contraire, I take you to be quite intelligent, certainly a bit beyond your age, though just how much, I was having trouble placing. Thanks for clarifying that. What tipped me off is not so much your joie de vie, which is quite refreshing, but rather that you talk like one who's life is ahead of them ... which is perfectly fair to say of you. Me, not so much, though I still have some good time ahead, still, I do see quite a lot of life from the rear-view mirror. Changes your perspective, a bit, I'm afraid. The other thing is the lack of confidence and self-doubt, again, perfectly natural at your age. You're shifting from one world to another, and your sense of self is changing, but you haven't quite figured it out, yet. Rest assured, that feeling never quite goes away, but it does get better, with time. Be patient with yourself. It can be hard to do, I know, when you're trying to prove yourself to your greatest critic ... yourself. Been there, my friend.

But on the plus side, you are clearly quite intelligent, and you do have an excellent sense of yourself, and the confidence to be yourself, so there ... and if anyone doesn't like it, well ... tough! Your humor bubbles up from that, and its a charming trait that will serve you well. I see a bright future ahead of you, and I hope I can get you one step closer to whatever awaits you.

Et pour votre français, êtes-vous Québécois, ou vous seulement apprenez ça à l'école, vous? (sigh) I'm afraid I haven't spoken French longer than you've been around. This is a strictly English town, and I haven't had the reason or opportunity to use it. Forgot much more than I remember, but I can still read it. Perhaps the French Wiki will help me pick some of it back up.

If you're still game on the Egyptians, I do want to caution you on one more thing. Traditionally, ancient Egyptian men wore a kilt, unless they were in the water, in which case, well, you may see a bit more than you're counting on. Women wore a very tight-fitting dress, very thin and almost transparent. Especially in statuary, the artistic tradition tends to show a bit more detail than you're used to seeing. Children simply wore nothing. It may take a little getting used to. But given the Egyptian climate, it was perfectly natural, reasonable, and meant nothing to them, whatsoever. Children's books on the subject will, naturally, omit or crop, or touch-up such artwork. Adult books do no such editing. I just wanted to mention it, because it tends to be a bit of a culture shock, especially when you thought you knew Egyptian art, and you start seeing more than you remembered. You're right, you are. High school textbooks will edit the artwork, as well. There's also a hieroglyph or two that would be edited out for explicitness. No big deal, I don't think, but I did think it's best to forewarn you, and have you say, "That? He was worried about that? Ptttttph!" than to catch you off guard, and leave you not sure what to think about it. Alright, enough about that.

And, before I go, just one more thing. "He duuuuuug the Mississippi Ri-ver, just to float his logs to sea! He sharpened his axe on a mountain. His toothpick was a mighty oak. You could hear his voice for a hun-dred miles, every time Paul Bunyan spoke. Paul Bun-yan! Paul Bun-yan! ... " Sorry. I had to share that. Hi-storian (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC) " ... bigger than a man should be ... "

P.S. If you do start looking for Egyptian medicine books, one more note: If you find a title on "Ptolemaic Egypt", you can pass over it. This period is after Egypt was invaded by Alexander the Great and Egypt became part of the Greek world. So Ptolemaic Egypt is outside the timespan of ancient Egypt. Hi-storian (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I really should let you be, donc voici le dernier message pour le moment : Vous êtes trop gentil! Je vous remercie pour votre encouragement. J'espère seulement que je vais devenir quelqu'un utile à la société et aux autres gens. J'utilise le français canadien – je ne suis pas certain quelle variété – et oui, je l'ai appris à l'école. Mon accent et ma grammaire sont tous les deux horrible, donc je pense que c'est probablement Québecacadifranglais. Je m'excuse, locuteurs et locutrices natifs – je suis en train de mutiler votre langue maternelle. I'm trying to improve though. Practice may not quite make perfect, but it does make...less...bad.

No Ptolemaic Egypt – got it. Thank you for the heads-up. I probably would've wasted quite a lot of time. I will be careful around the images, but I'm pretty sure I can take it.

(P.S.: Darn it, Bunyan...) Me, Myself & I (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Me, Myself, and I are Here: Merci! And your French is better than mine, at the moment. But, please, don't call me "French Canadian", that just squicks me. Je ne suis pas Québécois, j'est Acadien, moi. Toute chante ici ...

(sigh) Oh, nevermind. But yes, the difference between Quebec French and Metropolitan French is like the difference between American English and British English. And Acadian is more like Bostonian. The history and culture are night and day. And I'm not Cajun! Mardi Gras ... blasphemous bastards! (shake head) (sigh)

Anyhow ... had my appointment today. Guess what? I was right, the meds were messed-up. Got that straightened out. Helps when the patient is taking what the doctor thinks he's taking. So I hope a week or two I'll be back to my old self.

As for the images, it's no big deal, really, but it can be a bit of a shock, at first. They don't call it "culture shock" for no reason. Egyptian hieroglyphics are so unique. They work like no other language. Biliterals and triliterals, determinatives ... there's nothing like it anywhere. But when you find yourself looking at a word, saying, "it that what I think it is?" and finding out, yeah, it's the biliteral m-t, and yes, it's also the determinative for "man" or "masculine" ... and yes, it's exactly what you think it is ... well ... you're reminded that the ancient Egyptians just didn't see things quite the same way we see them. Honestly, you've probably seen worse. Don't get your hopes up! My concern was more the shock factor, and to make sure you don't get any strange ideas about it. But you sound fine, I'm not worried about you.

Speaking of worried, I would be in danger of losing my "grown-up" card, if I didn't mention that I hope what you're procrastinating on isn't a school project. School takes priority over Wikipedia. I'm sure you've heard that somewhere else, before! Sorry if I'm making an echo, but I remember being in high school and how much I loved those projects, especially, when I had my own, which were far more interesting. But yes, school is the priority, right now.

One of the reasons I wanted to take you up on the mentoring is that you were asking for help on something that I was never taught in school. Yet it's so important. I think that high school assumes it'll be taught in college, and college assumes it was taught in high school, and even though you're young, you've probably heard what happens when you assume. I also believe the best time to teach someone something is when they're interested in learning about it. It's certainly something that will help you do better in school and after it, in life. But if it's a question of school or me, well, I'll wait. School won't. Sorry, I had to say that. As I said, they'd tear-up my grown-up card if I didn't.

But when you have the chance, drop by your library, and see what you can find. If you're part of a library consortium, search on all libraries in your consortium. Go ahead and ask about getting some interesting titles on ILL ... you'll make your librarian's day. Really! I live near a major city, and even the city library doesn't have that much, but the suburban consortium does have a few titles the city library doesn't have. So it's worth your time looking into. ILL is so much easier since computerized catalogs and library consortiums have come around! Make the most of it. Hi-storian (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Me, Myself, and I are Here: Okaaaaaaaaay ... well, I didn't expect that reaction! At first, I just saw the typo fix ... then I eventually realized that the edit summary had a link. I guess I'm showing my age by seriously underestimating the curiosity of a teenager, especially a rather clever one, like you. Anyhow, let me be clear I did not expect that ... though, in retrospect, perhaps I should have.

So yes, there are some things that I find offensive, and that would be one of them. I guess the detachment and the objectifying of something that should only be a private and special gift that a man shares with his wife, in the context of a loving relationship ... well, it cheapens and degrades it, and turns the most intimate thing a man has to offer a woman into something disgusting and humiliating. Needless to say, I'm simply mortified. Not getting a response beyond the link just makes me even more so. I guess I sense a bit of disgust on your part ... which frankly, is my reaction, as well. And rightfully so. (sigh) Well, enough of that. Perhaps we should just take another topic, hmmmm? Hi-storian (talk) 07:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, first off, I'm glad to hear your meds are back in order! I do apologize for not leaving a message earlier; I was really just trying not to violate my promise not to reply again.

As for the hieroglyphs, it actually...wasn't really bad. That's by far not the worst thing I've seen on here...Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED, and I'm not against that per se, but it was a shock the first time I encountered an image that required the mention of that policy and I think twice before trying the random article feature now. So, no worries. Google is an obliging creature, but perhaps it's better that I not use it to satisfy my curiousity so often. But I should be mature enough by now to handle some stylized lines meant to represent ideas. I think I can still stick with this topic as long as I research it the same way I read picture-heavy books about molluscs – with utmost caution. The world is full of offensive things, and I'm going to have to face at least some of them anyway at some point. (Perhaps I could try exposure therapy with slugs on myself...nah. They are still too slimy.) I find language fascinating (well, there's very few topics in academia I don't find fascinating) – I hate to give up studying a language as unique and interesting as Ancient Egyptian just because I can't take the images they use. Thank you for the tips on how to use the library – I must confess that I have not even heard of ILLs before. I usually just cross my fingers and hope my library has what I want. Hmm. If it really is as bad as you say, though, what other topics would you suggest I look into first? Ancient Greek? P.S.: I am (grudgingly) focusing on school. I can always lock myself out of my account to make sure of that. Don't worry, your grown-up card is safe. Me, Myself & I (talk) 07:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Me, Myself, and I are Here: Thanks. I do appreciate your reply. I guess you do have a bit more maturity than I gave you credit for. So once again, I guess I'm starting to see a pattern emerging ... whatever I do, don't underestimate you. But if you push me, I will take the fifth, thank you. So this is as close as I'll come to pleading guilty and admitting that I resemble that remark.

(sigh) I guess there are some things that are sacred to me. Things that are special and worthy of respect. And I don't take the disrespect of those things very well. Nor do I believe anyone else should. I understand that other people may not see things the way I do, and that they should be able to and have the right to relate to things in the way they see fit. I don't have the right to impose my beliefs on others. That said, I also believe that we do not have the right to disrespect the beliefs of others. That is, to take something that someone else holds sacred, and to defile it for the purpose of being offensive. That's not free speech. That is personal. That is saying, "look at me, here's your belief. (Bleep) you." That is what I have a problem with.

You know, you're challenging me, and making me think about this ... and that is something I value highly in a person. Thanks.

Anyhow, so yes, I was saying ... Mardi Gras. I have nothing against people going out and having a good time. I have nothing against medieval celebrations. I have nothing against the female body. Indeed, I take it to be sacred. But to take the day before the start of the most sacred time of year that my ancestors took quite seriously, and under the guise of (a perversion of) a medieval celebration, and turn it to an event where the female body gets displayed in a certain manner which is most offensive to the sacredness that the event is supposed to be about ... well, that is just disgusting. And that is what I have a problem with. It is disrespecting and defiling the beliefs of another. That is the point where "free speech" ends. And profanity begins.

Now that same display of the female body by a wife in her husband's bedroom is a totally different affair. That is a gift, given by a woman to the man she loves. Same thing, you can argue, but totally different context and meaning.

Context is everything.

That is why I can look at a Renoir (might as well give you a link ... you're gonna look, anyway, aren't ya? ) and see the beauty in it, and not take the least offense. Because that is what a Renoir is ... it is a work of beauty and amazing skill. And when take a look at Nude in the Sun or Woman at the Well what do I see? I see beauty. There is noting in these paintings that is the least bit offensive. Indeed, the feeling that comes over me, when I look at them, is one of wanting to step into the painting and display to them the same tenderness and vulnerability that they display. I want to touch Nude in the Sun's shoulder, and feel her rest her head against me. I want to wash Woman at the Well's body, and gently dry her with a soft towel. And nothing more. I want to hear what Nude in the Sun's thinking ... look at her eyes, she is so deep in thought about something. It doesn't seem to be the most pleasant of thoughts ... there is a definite sadness in those eyes. What's behind that? Can I get her to talk about what bothers her? Sometimes, that is the best gift you can give a person. She seems to be in need of such a gift. Woman at the Well, what about her? What is in her face? What is that, exactly? I have trouble picking it out. Is it ... fear? What is she afaid of? I would so like to ease her fear, to soothe her senses and bring her to peace. This is what a Renoir is about. Their is nothing offensive about it ... if you let it speak to you, and you listen.

And think just what we would loose if these priceless works were to be censored. It is an opportunity to discover what beauty is really about. It's not about body parts ... though they may be part of the scene. It's about the scene, itself. It's the context. It's everything.

Anyhow, it's getting late, but I did want to say thank you for making me think, and to give you something to think about, as well.

Language ... I've plenty to say about it, but not right now. Needless to say we're in complete agreement.

ILL ... (sigh) you're every librarian's worst nightmare. Glad I was able to let you in on it. The details vary from state to state and province to province, but I don't believe that there is a public library that doesn't have some sort of arrangement.

As for ancient Greece ... touché. Point made. 'Nough said. But again ... it's all about context. I've nothing against a Greet vase, or for that matter, the David (which I've seen in person ... it's huge). Then again, it's the context.

Take care, my friend. Hi-storian (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the difference is that one is a celebration (art) and the other is a debasement (profanity) of the human form. It's like the difference between speaking one's mind and being discriminative or disruptively disrespectful. I'm really not qualified to comment on what constitutes "debasement", though, and everyone has a slightly different personal definition. I respect all interpretations or opinions as long as they don't try to dictate mine or anyone else's. I am very fond of Hall's quote describing Voltaire's convictions (but of course, it doesn't I want hate speech to go unpunished). I think it reflects my own thoughts quite nicely, and is applicable to many things. In art school, you may have to draw live models. That may be unthinkable to some, and I may not be all that comfortable with doing that myself, but for most people (including me), there is agreement that it is not obscene or offensive. It's art, it's education, and perhaps most importantly, it's optional. Same with Wikipedia, really...when done properly, Wikipedia is not censored for purely educational reasons in a purely educational context. Whatever my personal feelings may be regarding certain specific images, I have absolutely no objection to this policy. I would be hard-pressed to make a reasonable case for any objection to it when there are options to limit potentially offensive images and there is merit to sharing art, different cultures, and the acceptance that yes, reproductive organs and their accompanying...hmm...phenomena do exist. There is a balance to be maintained, an equilibrium between oversensitiveness to "offensive" items (which comes from ignoring the importance of context, e.g. objections to the swear words used in works of literature and the art pieces you linked) and insensitivity towards those who feel offended for perfectly legitimate reasons. I try not to feel personally offended by things, because that would make me angry enough to be incoherent or insulting in my arguments and objections and then I would not be much better than the offenders.

Well, I've spent enough of your time yapping at you about my opinions and working on my "assignment". I hope I haven't bothered you too much. I should probably go complete all my ectowiki tasks and so I can actually start it. If you have nothing more to add, you can just stop replying here and continue on with your life. Take care! Me, Myself & I (talk) 04:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Me, Myself, and I are Here: A most impressive reply, I might say. I really like your choice of words, "celebration" and "debasement", that's a great summation. Of course, there's also a "neutral" mode, but you speak to that, as well. I'm sorry for taking up so much of your time on this. Don't worry about bothering me, you're always welcome to say as much or as little as you wish. I guess in some ways, it was a sore spot with me, and you certainly helped me get a handle on what was bothering me, and get it sorted out in my mind. I see you've not only got an intelligence beyond your years, but the wisdom and maturity to go along with it. A rare combination. As I said, I guess the greatest lesson to me is to never, ever underestimate you. Sorry if I belabored the point beyond your liking ... but it was most helpful to me. Thank you. And yes, I'll leave you to your life. I'm sure I'll hear back if/when you find the time to share what you've found, if you're still interested. Thanks again, and take care. Hi-storian (talk) 04:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources

Can I put in a plea for you to alternate between tagging and adding sources? Sourcing can be very satisfying. Doug Weller talk 17:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Ah! I believe we've met. Of course, there's more to editing than just tagging pages, but a journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step. Sometimes, in the process of cleaning, you have to identify what you've got and sort it into different piles. Yes, I need to go through the piles ... but you got to start somewhere. I am by no means an expert in Egyptology, but I am doing research on one tiny corner of it as part of another larger project. Having as complete a list of Egyptologists as possible and making sure the info is vetted (or not) is an important first step. It is by no means the last. I will be introducing myself soon ... probably tonight or tomorrow. Just doing some behind-the-scenes cleanup and familiarizing myself with what's here and not here, for now. I'm sure we'll meet again soon. Hi-storian (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Tagging of J. Gwyn Griffiths‎

Hi High-storian,

I removed the tag you placed on the artcle J. Gwyn Griffiths‎ due to the overall pointlessness of its existence. I dislike tags, I really dislike tags. And the only ones I use are deletion tags that gets things done. If I see an article that I am unhappy with, I improve it. I don't tag and walk away and expect other to do that job. It is obvious which articles need improvement; it's the ones that are not GA articles. So if an article is less than GA it will automatically need better references. I promise you tagging does not make people wish to improve an article. Interest does. We may have a difference of opinion but I promise you it's better to spend your time improving than tagging. Regards FruitMonkey (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

FruitMonkey No, the tags are not pointless. They serve a purpose, even if you do not use that purpose or personally dislike them. It is not obvious to the casual reader of Wikipedia which articles are reliable and which are not. A casual reader does not know what "GA" even is, let alone use it as the sole guide of what is reliable and what isn't. I have been that casual reader for many, many years. I learned the significance of the tags long before I found out what a "Good Article" was. So your logic may reflect an insider's view of Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't for the insiders. It's for the casual readers who use Wikipedia, and donate to keep it running. Please remember that. And please remember that tagging articles, and sorting them is the first step in improving them. Just because I'm tagging now doesn't mean I won't improve later. But being uncivil and uncooperative just might guarantee what you're accusing me of. Remember, except for a few vandals, whose work is obviously pointless, the rest of us are working in WP:GOODFAITH. Edit warring, on the other hand is not. Hi-storian (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Personally after 8-9 years of editing, and having thousands of articles on my watchlist, I've never, I promise you, never, seen a tagger go back and improve an article. Please prove me wrong. FruitMonkey (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

FruitMonkey You're looking at him! You are engaging in an WP:EDITWAR and are being very disruptive. Please stop immediately. Hi-storian (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

FruitMonkey Thank you very much for stopping. As I said on your talk page, this is not personal. Your editwar, on the other hand, was. I hope the few minutes calm have given you a chance to reflect on what I've said and your actions. If this is how you normally react to someone tagging your article, then it is no wonder why you've never seen one of your articles improved. Your actions are clearly intended to scare away users who are trying to help you. If you hadn't stopped, I probably would never get back to your article again ... making your prediction true. It's called self-fulfilling prophecy. But by stopping and becoming civil again, you're increasing your chances that I might come back to your article again, in due time with the over a hundred articles I'm finding need attention. I hope you realize that your reaction was childish and immature, and that you will not try that behavior again, with me or any other user on Wikipedia. You will attract more flies with honey than with vinegar, my friend. Please keep that in mind when someone does what you personally dislike. We're all trying to do the same thing, make Wikipedia a better place for everyone. WP:Civility is essential. Almost all of us are working in WP:GOODFAITH. Your behavior felt very threatening to me. Remember that there is a WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. You came close to finding yourself on it. But fortunately, you stopped. And for that, I'm thankful. Sometimes, my friend, you will find yourself in places where the best thing to do is to agree to disagree. We all have our opinions, and they can't always match everyone else's opinions. But we can respect those opinions. That's all I ask. Thank you again for ending your war. I hope to work constructively with you in the future. Hi-storian (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

(Budding talk page stalker here – I assume you both are familiar with this essay?) If I may butt in for a moment: Hi(gh)-storian, I can state with reasonable confidence that you put tags on articles intending to go back to them and fix them (I've seen you do it on the articles on my watchlist), but FruitMonkey had no way of knowing that. They may have construed your tags as drive-by tagging, and acted accordingly. FruitMonkey, you've been here far longer than I have, and I respect that very much. For what it's worth, when I tag something, it's because I've already tried my best to weed out all the grammatical errors, track down the archives, and figure out the timeframe being referred to, but was unable to do so. I am far from the most competent person on here, and I want the information to be accurate and the prose to flow smoothly, so apologies to the harried experienced editors out there for making you check my work. I hope you both enjoy the rest of your day. I come in ☮, Me, Myself & I (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Short message about mummies

Hi,

Hope this message finds you well, and I hope I'm not interrupting. I might have been distracted by my watchlist and preoccupied by my schoolwork, but I managed to fill up my to-do list with some stuff (mummy taking up the power seat). Then the quality of the prose distracted me, and I looked up a bunch of FAs to compare it with. (sigh.) I'm wondering if you'd recommend ignoring the prose for now and focusing on the content. Thanks, Me, Myself & I (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Me, Myself, and I are Here:Hey there! I'm hanging in there ... still not quite myself, but could be worse, I guess. Winter seems to have finally hit, though I was not quite ready for it. (I don't think I ever am!) Looking for a break in the snow to head out and hit the libraries again, though they've been mostly closed due to snow, so I haven't really missed anything. Saw you do a bit of copy editing on Mummy and was wondering when I'd hear back from you. I'd say you're absolutely right, right now's not the time to focus on polishing the text of the article, right now it's about content and structure. That's why I was asking you for an outline.

Think of it as building a replica of the human body. You're not going to start with the skin and clothing. You start with the skeleton, first. (The outline) Then, you start putting in the major organs. (Facts, sources) Then you start putting muscles in place that holds it together. (The text) Then, you finish off with the skin, and perhaps a layer of clothing. (Getting the text to flow cleanly, and copyediting.)

I figured that you're such a natural editor, that just reading the article once through, you couldn't help yourself from making obvious edits. But really, to be able to do meaningful editing, you need to take a step back and look at the forest, as a whole. You've got a pretty wide subject, perhaps about as wide as "ancient Egyptian medicine" is. What I've found on my project is that nobody seems to have done a truly comprehensive review of the entire body of written work, i.e., the corpus, of ancient Egyptian medicine. They've tended to focus on two or three of the manuscripts, and given a short glance at the rest, but largely passing over them. Then they make conclusions off of a small portion of the facts, which is not the best way to go. The project's turning out to be much more involved than expected, but then again, that's how most projects go. You're not going to build a mountain overnight. But if you keep chipping away at it, bit by bit, persistence and patience will get you there, in time.

What I'd like to hear most, right now is what are your thoughts on the article, as it sits. Clearly the text needs re-working, I got that part. But as I said, and as you, yourself are realizing, the question right now is about the content ... what's there, what's not there, too much, too little, too general, too specific, too broad ... start on that very highest level. We'll get to the microscope later. Hi-storian (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Hi-storian (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hee hee...good call on the ping. I probably would have sat in front of my computer, waiting for the little red notification...

Yes. Thank you for the thanks. The capitalization of "ancient" in "ancient (insert empire here)" has become something of a pet peeve for me. I haven't done nearly enough nitpicking on the content area. Progress on that page has stalled. There's a split proposal, but I'm on the fence about it. We could possibly find enough material for it, but will it be considered necessary? There's no discussion going on. Is there any way to jump-start it?

So far, I'm planning on addressing the unresolved concerns brought up in the archive/talk page, then looking into the references, probably section by section, while still looking at FAs to set the standards for content inclusion. I might not be able to get anything major done until spring break, but at least I can formulate an outline (the "skeleton", as you said). Me, Myself & I (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Me, Myself, and I are Here: Thanks. I realized I hadn't heard back and then thought maybe you hadn't seen it yet ... doh! Oh, well. Yeah, Wikipedia does have a somewhat strange capitalization standard. AFAIK, it's sentence case where most people expect title case. But then, the sentence case throws people, and they follow the capitalization exactly as it appears in the article, forgetting that if ancient is not the first word ... (sigh) Try getting a pet cat instead. They're warmer and fluffier than peeves.

As far as nitpicking goes ... stop and take a step back. Don't try to answer every question about the page just now. You'll only overwhelm yourself, and I'm a bit concerned that may be exactly where you are right now. This is not a school project where the only thing that counts is the final product, which has to be done to perfection, before you can discuss it. The point of this project is not the project, itself. The point is to learn how to work through the project. I know you tend to be briefer in your words than I am. But what I really want is to hear what you're thinking about the article. I asked a few questions, above, as examples of the kind of question you should be asking right now. Take another look at that, and try to focus on that level.

If you're really stuck on where to start, just tell me very quickly what you learned about mummies from the article. Then, from that, we can start on an outline. Don't feel you have to do everything by yourself. When you have questions or are uncertain what to do next, ask, that's what I'm here for. Just take one step at a time, and I think by the time you're done in a few weeks or a few months you'll be surprised at what you've accomplished. It'll take time, to get there, but don't worry about that. Just one small step at a time. Hi-storian (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I do tend to cut my words to the bare minimum. Most people on here like to keep it short, and I suppose that's bleeding through. Hum...let's see. Here are my preliminary thoughts: I learned that "mummy" is derived from mumia, and once could refer to the preparation made from the mummy and not the mummy itself. I think that section's fine. I learned that the First World Congress on Mummy Studies was held in the Canary Islands, that people just have to capitalize 20th Century (no...ignore it!...too late), and that there is a distinction between anthropogenic and natural (spontaneous) mummies. I did know about certain tidbits already (the CT scans, usage of jars, natron, the liquified brain removal). The Egyptian section is large (most popular, I guess), and at this point I don't know what else to put in there. I looked at Ancient Egyptian funerary practices (start class article!), and although there is good stuff there, no one wants to overfocus the mummy article on Egyptian mummies. I mean, Christian mummies got one sentence. Now, the "in other cultures" section does include a lot of cultures, but some sections in it seem under-referenced (they have no or just one reference). That's going on the to-do list. Self-mummification/modern mummies is very interesting indeed. I knew just about nothing about any of those. Before making a judgment, again, I need to do more research. The See also section has stuff to see also. It's in alphabetical order. Can things be added and removed? Certainly, but I think it's fine the way it is. At this point, it's at a C – no higher than a B for sure, and I'm inclined to agree with this assessment, due to the prose and referencing.

Anyway, those are my initial thoughts. Will have more after research and consideration. Me, Myself & I (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Me, Myself, and I are Here: Okay, that's a start. You know, there's a time to KISS (Keep it simple, silly) and a time to be more descriptive. This would be the latter. What I'm trying to do is show you how to focus your thoughts down ... so to have something to work with, I have to start with your current (unfocused) thoughts and help you sort them out, so this is just great! Exactly what I'm looking for.

I'll start with your comments, point by point, then I'll throw out a few more questions to help you get on the right track. Sound good? Hope so, 'cause I'm going do it, anyway.

mumia ... what is it?

First World Congress on Mummy Studies ... when was it?

century ... pour les siècles et les siècles!

anthropogenic and natural (spontaneous) mummies ... okay, sounds like some bullet points, no?

CT scans, usage of jars, natron, the liquified brain removal ... good, more bullet points?

The Egyptian section is large ... how large? Larger than the others? Possibly subarticle material??

Christian mummies got one sentence. ... That does sound short ... but do you also notice these items start to sound like bullet points?

Ancient Egyptian funerary practices ... Okay, you already have a subarticle. So that's something you want to consider ... balance between the main article and the subarticle. Sounds like you're already thinking about it, so that's great!

"in other cultures" section does include a lot of cultures, ... okay, sounds like we've got more bullet points ... and thinking about balance ... too much here, too little there ... very good!

Self-mummification/modern mummies ... Okay, something you didn't already know, so perhaps this needs some attention versus the better known topics ... thinking about the balance of the article ... good, good!

I need to do more research. ... Yep ... but the first step is to recognize that. You've gotten a sense that the subject is actually broader than you first thought ... and you realize there are areas you didn't know about before ... and some of those things are poorly represented in the article ... so the scope of the project's starting to take shape in your mind. Great start!

See also section ... sounds like some pruning and/or expansion is in order. Okay ... so that brings up the wider question of what should be in the article and what should be out of it, and passed over to other articles. That's the question of balance and scope. Good!

Excellent start!! A+.

Now we got something to start building an outline with. Can you go over the article, as it sits, and do an outline of how it is now? Certainly the section headings should give you a starting point ... but don't limit yourself to them. Look for what the main points are, where the subject changes ... however they present themselves, now. Keep in mind the article may not be well structured now, so as you do this, you may find yourself saying, "wait, that's not right!" ... that should give you clues as to what needs to be changed ... that's the kind of thing you want to make a note of and consider. But for now, just focus on the outline of how it sits, and send me that (a link to a user page of yours is fine), and any thoughts / ideas you had along the way ... then we can try to sift through that and discuss further. After that, we'll look at starting a new outline of how you think the article should be. Sound like a plan??

Sounds like you're starting to itch to get to a library, perhaps? I think it may be a step coming up. Spring break sounds like a chance to do a bit of reading / research, maybe? The project's going to take a while, and you do have other things you need to balance in life, but little time to do things now doesn't mean you won't have time, later ... you just need to think ahead, a bit.

Has this helped, at all?? Overall, I think you're doing just fine. Perhaps a little unsure of yourself, but your instincts are good. You just need to trust 'em a little more. Don't be afraid to fail. You can't do everything perfect, the first time! But you can do pretty well, and sometimes, that's all it takes. I think the most important lesson in life is learning how to learn. It sounds obvious, doesn't it? But sadly, that's something they often forget to teach in school. They get too focused on the details of the subject, and they don't take a step back and look at the learning process, itself. So that's what I'm trying to focus on. Hopefully, the tricks you learn now, you can use in school and college ahead, and will help you achieve more with less effort ... and you'll be more confident about yourself, because you know what work you've done and that the process you followed is sound. Much better than trying to cram facts into your head, without some larger rhyme or reason ... which is what most students wind up doing.

Hope all of this helps ... and if it doesn't ... ask questions!! That's what I'm here for, okay?? Hi-storian (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Me, Myself, and I are Here: BTW: One thing you want to keep in mind: It may take a week or so for ILL books to arrive. I don't know when your spring break is, but it's something to keep in mind. You'll want to do the library catalog research before spring break, so that you can get your ILL orders in, and have the book in hand to look over and read during spring break. Have you found your library's website, yet? I'm willing to bet that you can do all your research and even order ILL books online, from home. Hi-storian (talk) 10:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I do have the website! (Funny, I've never noticed the ILL section before...rather unobservant of me.) Unfortunately, it's not possible to order it online – it has to be done by phone or in person, so I still have to move all the way from my chair to another room. Thanks for the tip – I'd hate to have put in an order and leave on vacation without getting it. I'm taking your advice to focus on schoolwork, only doing replies and short copyediting work, so I might take some time with the mummy draft (started a Word doc...) and even longer to get back to you about the secondary sources. (I'm beginning to think I need to make a user subpage for "lessons with High-storian"...) Me, Myself & I (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Me, Myself, and I are Here: Well, I certainly won't stand in the way of you and schoolwork! Sounds like you're starting to get things together, though. Remember, I'm not looking for a draft article ... only an outline. Please keep me in the loop when you find / select books, so I can try to have them on hand on my end, as well (in case you have questions or need help). I'm rather surprised that the ILL isn't enabled online, as it actually doesn't take much, technically to do that. But sometimes, old habits die hard. At least the catalog's available, that's a start! Take care. Hi-storian (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

For this comment. I was thinking about a response at the time ... and then forgot. Sorry. I think we're on the same page there. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole Hello there, good to meet you! I had forgotten about those comments, thanks for the support. I wrote those comments a couple days after posting my comments on the user input process they had going on at the time. I was so annoyed at the apparently clueless nature of the ideas proposed ... I mean, writing an encyclopedia with an automated script? They actually proposed that??!! Then to hear that we were being cited by OUP as a "source" and that lethal drug doses had recently appeared in one of our articles and was published?? Something's wrong here.

I've been watching Wikipedia for a very long time. I've tried editing, off and on, and found the place to be very childish, and not a good use of my time. But recently, I found some nice comments to some of my edits as an IP and was very warmly encouraged to sign-up ... so here I am. So I'm giving it another try, and while I've had a couple run-ins with less than desirable users, I find that overall, the place is much improved. But there's a lot of improvement, left to go.

A simple resolution that Wikipedia information ought to be reliable seems to be a no-brainer. It simply astounds me that it's not.

Did you see the comment about Flagged Revisions? Sounds interesting ... though I don't think it should be used by default, but certainly some pages should use it. Medical pages and other like pages that provide potentially life-threatening information seem to be an excellent candidate, though.

Anyhow, glad to meet you. I take you've been around on the [[User:]]side far longer than I have. I'd love to hear your thoughts about how we can improve the place. Hi-storian (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

You wrote

"Hi there. While I appreciate you're trying to keep Wikipedia articles in accordance to the "rules", surely, you must know that a very large number of articles are here that don't meet the rules. I was trying to fill a gap with a publisher that has a separate children's imprint, that was founded as an independent company. I had barely gotten the framework in, and was staring to put in some details when you went and deleted it. I don't want to get into an edit war with you, but how do you get a new article started if you keep deleting them before they're complete?? While you're at it, why not delete every link in Template:Lagardère ... which is one of the blanks I was trying to fill??"

For a start, I didn't delete the article first time round. I redirected it, which left the original text in the history so you could have retrieved it any time. I deleted it only after you showed that you were not prepared to compromise. I understood you to be an experienced wikipedian who had been editing here for a while before creating an ID, which made me think that you were familiar with the guidelines but clearly this is not the case. If you want to create a new article but you don't yet have the references to demonstrate notability, you can use your sandbox to work on it. Alternatively, you can use the "under construction" template to show that you are still working on it. "Other stuff exists" is not a good argument for keeping unfinished articles in article space. Deb (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Deb "Not prepared to compromise??" Excuse me?? I was trying to write the darn article and you pulled the rug out from under me! How long does a user have to fully develop an article? Five minutes?? I understand your zeal for having fully developed articles, but you must at least give a person a chance to do so. And yes, I've been around for a while, and have seen tons of articles that are stubs. So, what's the problem with one more stub? Or should we delete every stub? By your standards, I bet we can delete over half of the articles here, perhaps more. Instead of just engaging a user in a hostile edit war, why not send them a friendly, helpful note?? And give them a little time, say an hour or so, before deciding that they are obviously a vandal who's creating a "useless" stub and are not going to try to flesh it out?? Why must you go to such extremes?? Why not be friendly, instead?? It was a friendly, helpful user who convinced me to sign up. If I met you, first, I would have never bothered. So honestly, what horrible rule did I "break" that had to be punished?? What happened to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules? Is Wikipedia not a bureaucracy?? Why do you have to finish an article in less than five minutes?? While I understand your goal, I'm not sure the way you're going about to achive it is a constructive one. Hi-storian (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems from your response that you are not prepared to read the guidelines and abide by them, and moreover you have misrepresented the sequence of events. I've explained above what you should have done, which is what an experienced user would have done. Stubs don't get deleted because they are stubs; they get deleted because they meet the criteria for speedy deletion. I redirected the stub out of a desire to guide you towards adding references rather than simply deleting. Your response was to revert my edit, thus potentially starting an edit war. I would recommend you drop the "injured innocence" attitude; it will get you nowhere fast. [[User:|Deb]] (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Deb "not prepared to read the guidelines??" Pardon me ... there are tons of guidelines around. What guideline permits you to delete an article that is still in the process of being created?? Where is the Wikipedia:Civility?? Shouldn't you Wikipedia:Assume good faith?? Why do you have to be so hostile and defensive?? I'm not evil and in need of punishment. I may be a newbie to all of the "rules", and perhaps could use some friendly help. What rule allows you to violate this rule?? I'm not objecting to your basic goal. I am objecting to the way you're going about it. Hi-storian (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Deb It's important to consider the edit history to see if someone is actively working on the article before deleting it. Your decision to delete disrupted someone who was working on it. Try their talk page next time. It's also possible to explain speedy deletion criteria and the rest without more or less writing off the editor here. High-storian, with that said, I'm having trouble finding evidence that this child company of Hachette (publisher) has coverage that would support its notability. Maybe you have something I didn't find? If not, I think Deb is correct that a redirect to Hachette with a sentence or two about the child company makes more sense here. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I JethroBT The company is a children's publisher, founded as an independent company, but bought and sold and is now a unit of Hachette. If you look at the template, it's part of Hachette Children's, which includes Orchard Books and Franklin Watts. Hachette Children's runs an independent operation, with its own website and booklist, not connected to the adult division. Also, unlike the other two divisions of Hachette Children's, it was not part of the Grolier purchase. It is a UK based company, so depending on where you're looking, you may not find much, as it's not an American publisher of adult literature. I doubt you'll find anything on Google Scholar. What I don't understand is that if the other two divisions have their own articles, why should the third have not??

My real concern here, and I haven't gotten an answer yet, is what are "the rules" ... how many minutes do I have to complete an article before it gets tossed in the bit bucket for being less than perfect? What is a perfect article, anyway? The children's publisher is really a side issue for me, which is why I was creating a stub, in hopes that it could be expanded by someone, like the other stubs. In the topic I'm researching, there are tons of stub articles, many without references. I'm doing some considerable research on it, and I anticipate expanding many articles, and creating a number of new ones. This encounter raises for me the question of what are "the rules" I must follow?? I haven't run into any clear, hard rules other than the guidelines of cooperation that another friendly user sent my way. I really want to know what the rules are so I can follow them. Not an argument that I "refuse" to follow the rules without ever being told what they are, and given a chance to comply.

I must say that if Deb were the first user I encountered on Wikipedia, I would have never started my project, in the first place. It was only with the friendly encouragement of a user who cheered me on, and sent a ray of sunshine my way that I decided to sign up and even agree to mentor her on the process of historical research. While I know how to research things, and even agree with Deb's goal of not having unreferenced articles, I'm still new with the details of Wikipedia's rules, and still don't know what justified her action. I'm looking for a little help here, not a fight.

BTW, one question I never got an answer on: How do you search for rules and guidelines, in the first place?? As far as I know, you can search only for articles, not for help. I've asked a few times and no one's given me a good answer on that. People tend to hand me the fish that I'm looking for, but no one has taught me how to fish and find the guidelines on my own. Hi-storian (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@High-storian: Following up on your Qs:

• What I don't understand is that if the other two divisions have their own articles, why should the third have not?? Well, every article has to stand on its own. If Orchard Books and Franklin Watts have no sources to support their notability, they're also probably not appropriate for inclusion should be redirected to Hachette. Tell you what, I'm going to boldly change these to redirects for now, because that seems more appropriate here.

@I JethroBT: Wow! Now I'm really confused! Are you saying that children's publishers don't qualify for a mention here?? Here is what I find useful about those articles you redirected: Say I find a book published by Orchard Books. I don't know anything about the book or the company, so I look them up. Just a simple stub article saying that they're a children's publisher tells me something about the book. It's probably not going to be a "reliable source". Right now, I get redirected to another company, that has no mention of who Orchard Books is. Unless I already know who the company is, I don't even know why I got redirected. Perhaps if you moved the text of the article to Hachette, as a section redirect, that'd be helpful. But then you'd have to have every division of Hachette in the article, making the article too big, which is why it was split up. So we're getting into a circular logic here. I really have no clue what the policy is, here. Hi-storian (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

P.S.: BTW, those two companies are not fully owned by Hachette. Only the UK rights went there. The U.S. rights went to Scholastic. So now, if you're in the US instead of the UK, the redirects are wrong. Sometimes things are complicated, you know. Hi-storian (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@High-storian: Are you saying that children's publishers don't qualify for a mention here?? Definitely not, there are plenty of articles on children's publishers that are consistent with notability expectations (e.g. Nosy Crow, Tamarind Books). But being a children's publisher (or any kind of company) isn't a sufficient claim for inclusion on its own. I agree that some context about these companies is needed in the target article, but I only have so much time at the moment to look into this, which looks like it will require the (sigh) deeply uninteresting work of looking at corporate structures of Hachette and its various groups. Also agreed that the Scholastic / Hachette split will need to be addressed, and I don't have a definite solution at the moment. It looks like Hachette Book Group or the yet uncreated Hachette Childrens's Group may be a better target with which to direct folks to and provide information about these companies. I'll redirect to the former for now. Could you add info to that article on these companies at that page? We can figure out the rest later-- this project is an indefinite work in progress, after all. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 00:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I JethroBT Well, I guess I remain unclear as to how you're applying the notability guideline in this case. It also sounds like you're making things too complex for yourself. Certainly you've made it too complex for me. We're spending far too much time and effort on a very tangential issue for my work. I give up. You win ... I cease and desist from attempting to contribute new articles to Wikipedia. IMHO, if these rules were applied consistently across all of Wikipedia, we could cut the 5 million articles down to at least 2 million. Granted, past errors don't justify continued errors, but the nature of Wikipedia has changed over the years, and I find, make it more useful. You seem to want to turn the tide the other way around. I don't understand your logic, and I'm not sure it's worth my effort to try. Hi-storian (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@High-storian: Nooo, please don't give up. I really hope you'll reconsider. You seem like a good writer to me, and writing a new article is not so hard. My goal is not to "win" so much as I am doing my best to answer your questions, and they don't have easy-to-explain answers. It is fine to make mistakes, too, because the important thing is you want to build an encyclopedia. You've done great work so far, too. The notability criteria I'm applying here are the general notability guideline (i.e. I don't see independent, reliable sources that describe these companies in detail) and the notability criteria for companies (i.e. being a child company of Hachette or a children's publishing company can't support the notability of the company).

IMHO, if these rules were applied consistently across all of Wikipedia, we could cut the 5 million articles down to at least 2 million Well, I think they more or less are applied consistently when they are understood and when people actually see a problem. New articles get created and forgotten and no one notices them until someone finds them. That's why we have these principles like "other stuff exists;" just because an article is here doesn't mean someone with an understanding of article policies and guidelines has formally reviewed or even seen it yet. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• My real concern here, and I haven't gotten an answer yet, is what are "the rules" ... how many minutes do I have to complete an article before it gets tossed in the bit bucket for being less than perfect? What is a perfect article, anyway? I've attempted to answer your first question here at The Teahouse, though that's based on my experience (your mileage may vary). If you're looking for an exact number of minutes, there isn't one. I generally try not to delete until it's clear the editor has stepped away from the article after a first pass, but that's just me, and I've probably strayed from that here and there depending on the circumstances. Reviewing new articles is not really a formal system; it's making judgment calls based many factors like the speedy deletion criteria, the degree of effort put into the article, the quality of the sources, and there's going to be some subjective differences from editor to editor. The best articles are featured articles, which aren't perfect, but have undergone extensive peer review for quality and thoroughness. You don't need to be anywhere close to level of quality just to ensure an article will stick.
• How do you search for rules and guidelines, in the first place?? This primer is a good place to start to see the policies and guidelines we have in general. To search for polciies and guidelines in general, start your search with Wikipedia: or WP: in the search bar.

I hope that clears some questions up! : ) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I JethroBT Thanks, but see above where you really confused me. Hi-storian Hi-storian (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)