MrTroy

Erythropoietin

Can you cite sources that prefer erythropoetin over erythropoietin? I've only seen the latter in my studies, and Google has a whopping 2M+ hits for erythropoietin and less than 2K for erythropoetin. Is this a British vs. American English difference? Please discuss before changing all occurrences that appear in Wikipedia. Cheers, David Iberri (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry about editing before discussing, I was a bit over-enthusiastic there. ;) See Talk:Erythropoietin for further discussion about this. I don't think it's a BrE / AmE difference, but it surely is a difference between European languages. In Dutch, for example, most people agree on 'poe' rather than 'poie'. Seems to be different in English.

Regarding to "I've only seen the latter in my studies": that's peculiar, because 'poe' is what I read in the greater part of my books & research papers. And those are in English, not in Dutch, so that can't be it.

Finally, let me repeat what I said on the talk page: Google isn't a reliable source for spelling. MrTroy 17:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to the talk page; I should've checked there before repeating the same arguments. Also, I agree with you on Google's reliability for spelling, though Google tends to be helpful in very lopsided cases like this.

Interesting that you've encountered 'poe' almost exclusively. It's entirely different here in the States. I imagine that a peek at the original Bonsdorff and Jalavisto paper ("A humoral mechanism in anoxic erythrocytosis") would put this issue to rest, though, lamentably I don't have access to it. Cheers, David Iberri (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Through the university I have access to an amazing amount of papers, including some from the period in which the Bonsdorff E, Jalavisto E paper was published (i.e. 1948). Although my hopes aren't high, I'll see if I can lay my hands on it. MrTroy 21:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Codec comparison

I'm not familar with {{but yes}}. What is the meaning of this, compared with a simple {{yes}}? I'm also slightly curious about the column of "maximum supported bitrate". Do typical codecs have a maximum bitrate? None seem to be filled in at the moment. Stephen B Streater 14:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

{{yes}} gives a green box with "yes", {{but yes}} gives a red box with "yes". As in this case patenting is a bad thing, "yes" should be in a red box.

Most codecs have an unlimited bitrate, but not all. DivX, for instance, has a maximum bitrate of 16000kbps. It was not me, by the way, who introduced that column to the page.

MrTroy 14:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you a cite for "Patenting is a bad thing"? It sounds like POV to me - see WP:POV - and should not be included in the article. An alternative POV is that Patenting is good - one clearly believed by legislatures in all rich countries as they all have passed Patent laws. Stephen B Streater 15:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What the hey, dude. I didn't include that in the article, I'm just saying it here. This is my talk page, I have the right to say such things.

Regarding why it should be {{but yes}}: on Wikipedia pages about software that is the unwritten policy. Patented & non-free things are regarded "red", unpatented & free stuff is "green". Just because everyone likes free stuff. If you want to discuss it, find a psychologist, they can without a doubt tell you why people feel that way. MrTroy 20:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing personal. Just because a POV is common doesn't mean it's right. I do take you point that many software articles reflect the enthusiast origins of WP, and this could be interpreted as traditional now. I prefer articles to consistently meet the neutrality policy. This difference in colour is not on the same scale as the POV politics edit wars which rage in some subjects. Stephen B Streater 21:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's good as it is now: without colour. This way people can decide for themselves if patenting is good or bad. I don't know anyone who likes software patents, but I agree it's still not-NPOV to include colouring. MrTroy 21:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you please help protect this article from unfair deletionists?

Hi MrTroy! I found you through Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians. I was hoping if you can lend me a helping hand with International Institute of Management article. On August 10 an unknown person marked it for deletion. Then a group of 4 deletionists gave a delete vote claiming non-notability. Inspite of the fact that nn is not an official reason for deletion, I provided a clear evidence of notability and verifiable references and won a stong keep vote from Ephilei (another inclusionist). However, my concern is that we are only 3 votes against 6 votes . Therefore, I kindly ask you to check the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Institute_of_Management (if it is too long you can check keep comments). I’m not asking for anything more than an ethical vote. I’m willing to return the favor and review a similar articles. Every keep vote counts, please help! Miro.gal

Thanks for asking me. This is exactly why I joined the Association. I will look into it and see if I can place a 'keep' vote. Have a good day, - MrTroy 07:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"Newspaper spelling"

I would like to remind you of the Wikipedia policy "No original research", section What is excluded. It says "An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. [...] It introduces original ideas; It defines new terms." Please also have a look at Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms. By the way, it's not acceptable to cite a source that you have created yourself to back your introduction of the new term. (I think you know what I mean.)

You would like to see the term "Newspaper spelling" used for British English with -ise and I agree that it would be nice to have such a term. But you cannot just create this term! Wikipedia is about knowledge and conventions that already exist. I've never heard of "Newspaper spelling". One reason why I don't think the term is appropriate: there is no connection to the UK. "Newspaper spelling" could be used to describe how newspapers spell in the US, for example. Or it could be used for German newspapers to describe their own system of spelling after the German spelling reform. (How about "British government spelling", that would be much more precise AND correct, because the British government indeed prefers -ise.)

Don't get me wrong: I think it's a good idea to have a term for the -ise spelling. (I'm a supporter of Oxford spelling (-ize) as well.) Feel free to use your term and promote it, but NOT in the Wikipedia article space. I ask you to remove the respective instances of the word in the various articles. Nobbie 11:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You have a legitimate complaint, but for the wrong reason.

You're perfectly right it isn't a widely used term. I readily admit that I had to search a long time to find a few actual websites using the term. Google has some more examples that use the term in this context, but they're mostly forums and blogs - WP doesn't allow those as references. However, apart from "Standard British English" - a term which, by the way, receives a lot of complaints from Wikipedians who view Oxford Spelling as "standard" - Newspaper Spelling was the only term I could find on the Internet. I have consulted a few books on English spelling, but they, too, didn't get any further than "Standard British English". So I agree Newspaper Spelling isn't a widely used term; it is, however, used. I regard myself as an inclusionist, and therefore I used the term in some articles, even though it's not in wide use (yet). I think I did include on some of the pages that it's sometimes used or not widely used.

However, you can trust me that I didn't "fabricate the evidence". I won't deny I think it's a good idea to have such a term, but I wouldn't go as far as creating a website about it and listing it as a reference. If you've looked at my contribution history you might've noticed that I'm frequently removing other people's Original Research from pages - the goal of WP is creating an encyclopedia, not an collection of other people's opinions and inventions. It would be rather hypocritical for me to include OR myself.

If you look hard enough (on the Internet) you will find the use of the term "Newspaper Spelling" is certainly verifiable. As I noted before, many websites using it will be forums and blogs, but they, too, are 'proof' for the use of the term. Not for the correctness of course, but that's not the issue here. I actually had a similar discussion on Aspect ratio (image), which was about a film term I allegedly had 'invented myself'. It was very much alike to this one - half of the users saying terms only used on the Internet are OR, and the other half saying the use of terms on the Internet proves their existence. I wonder how this one's going to end. Have a nice day, --MrTroy 12:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that doesn't convince me. I'm not saying that the term is "not widely used", I'm saying it's not used at all, except by you and that you would like to introduce it. Is there anyone else using it? Please show me some references, I'd be interested! I'd also like to see the blog and forum entries you referred to. And I'd like to repeat what I said above: The term "Newspaper spelling" is too generic to be used for such a purpose. It doesn't provide any references to English or British English!

By the way, the only instances of "newspaper spelling" referring to the -ise spelling that can be found using Google are the ones you inserted into several Wikipedia articles. Nobbie 14:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Now, now. Then let me remind you of another policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith. If I tell you it's not original research, it would be polite to assume I'm telling the truth. If you insist I'll find you some of the forum & blog entries. Not today though, I have other (and better) things to do.

About your too generic comments and suggestions for alternatives: I see your point, but it's of no use for this discussion. I already told you I didn't invent the term. I'm just trying to get it on Wikipedia, after having found it on the Internet. Inventing new terms, such as "British government spelling", would actually make matters more confusing and totally excludes it from being included on Wikipedia (because a new term would certainly be OR). MrTroy 21:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd really like to assume Good Faith. But in this case, it seems too obvious that it's original research. Why don't you just admit it? I could list some "evidence" here, if you wish. We can also carry on this discussion at the talk page of the Manual of Style (spelling) page, where you first introduced the term. I'm absolutely sure that other users would agree with me. I've removed the term. Please don't re-introduce it until you can provide good sources to back your claims. Nobbie 11:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you just admit it?

I admitted a lot. Such as that there indeed aren't many sources, that it isn't widely used, and that nearly all Google hits are from Wikipedia. I can't admit it's OR though, because it isn't. I didn't invent the term Newspaper Spelling.

I can understand you though. Some users like to see more references for claims than others, and you clearly fall in that category. I will see if I can get more evidence and eventually reintroduce the term.

Something that strikes me though, is that you gave me less than a day before you deleted the entries. That's not only not assuming good faith, it's not even trying to. MrTroy 11:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone can respond immediately. But that is OK as Wikipedia is not in a rush. It is usually better to get the considered answer than the hasty one, and giving people time to formulate a reply is usually productive in the long term. Stephen B Streater 12:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for having been so "aggressive". Thanks Stephen, for pointing that out. I should have been more patient. Nobbie 17:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've had a good resolution of a discussion with Mr Troy before. I look forward to seeing you around the project too. Stephen B Streater 18:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:RUG logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:RUG logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:RUG logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:RUG logo.gif. 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. NotifyBot (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)