User talk:Johndburger/Archive 2007

RE: Great Gastby

How much did i miss? Thanks for letting me know bout the mistake too. → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKS^C_RS 22:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Toni Collette & the Finish—Beautiful Awkward Pictures .jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Toni Collette & the Finish—Beautiful Awkward Pictures .jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Re Human language technology

Yep: I'm not convinced of the factual accuracy of the whole set of claims. It looks like an attempt over a number of articles to insert Bruce Wydner into a pivotal role in computing history. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Bruce Wydner. Gordonofcartoon 11:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yah—he may or may not have been the first to use the term "human language technology", but the field existed long before that. I will be working on the HLT article bit by bit. —johndburger 00:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

heroes and roaches

I removed the section, and you would've been justified to do so. There was a long discussion on the talk page about it. Might be worth reviewing if you'd like to be able to cite it for later reversions. Anyways, nice edit and summary, they let me know what to look for. ThuranX 01:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Nice to get some encouragement on the summary—bad or missing summaries are one of my pet peeves. —johndburger 01:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Devoninspiration

Skimming their edits, they don't seem to be actually adding any spam links, just a lot of borderline-notable authors and books. I'd just add {{notability|books}} or {{notability|biographies}} to the tops of the pages to flag them as needing better sources, or prod them for deletion if they were looking particularly bad. (There's at least one unpublished book in there which would break the WP:CRYSTAL policy, and can be prodded immediately.) --McGeddon 09:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Blazing the Trail comment at User talk:Easphi

Hi John! I too noticed the string of edits adding Blazing the Trail to the reference section of many articles. Thanks for writing the nicely-worded comment at User talk:Easphi. I did notice from http://astronautics.usc.edu/faculty-staff/gruntman.htm that the author of Blazing the Trail is chair of the astronautics department at USC, so the book is presumably scholarly enough for use as an encyclopedic reference. Specifically regarding your comment about Hale, using the Amazon 'search inside' feature shows the book does mention Hale in the context of The Brick Moon, an article I have worked on in the past. In fact, although in that article I used two different primary sources showing that Hale published Brick Moon as early as he did, I didn't have a secondary source that discussed this. So in that one case at least, a reference to Blazing the Trail actually helps the scholarliness of the article. Anyway, thanks again for starting the discussion so politely on the Easphi talk page: if anything can resolve the situation smoothly, that surely was a good start! (sdsds - talk) 05:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yah, I knew that the reference was not completely irrelevant to the Hale article, but, at first glance, I suspect many readers will be puzzled. There are other articles to which Easphi added this reference that I think are even less clear, e.g., Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald‎, Hyder Ali, and several others. These are all militarily related, so perhaps there is indeed a connection, and, indeed, both Cochrane and Ali are in the book's index—that's why I suggested that Easphi footnote the relevant chunks of article text. If the intent is not spammy, the user should have no reason not to so improve the scholarliness of the articles. —johndburger 14:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello John, I was asked to look into this issue, please see here for the results of administrator review of the situation, I took the issue to Alison to request her opinion. Should you feel the book is appropriate to use as a "Further reading" section, in certain articles, that's fine, but the website is now on the blacklist as a spam site. Please let me know if you notice the editor in question adding any additional links. Thanks for catching this John! ^Ariel♥Gold 05:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I had forgotten about this, glad it's been dealt with. Thanks to you admin-type folks for your efforts! —johndburger 14:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Recursive

Yep, it's an oddity in Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser uses this throughout to refer to what normally would be called dependent/ descendent. Has something to do with the structure/hierarchy of the way the categories are handled. SkierRMH 21:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Toni Collette & the Finish—Beautiful Awkward Pictures .jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Toni Collette & the Finish—Beautiful Awkward Pictures .jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)