User talk:Tony Sidaway: Difference between revisions

User talk:Tony Sidaway/Notices

The article Scheme (programming language) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Article for things which need to be addressed.

• I'm using a template, I'm not sure that "close to meeting the criteria" is an accurate summary, but at least you have an opportunity to comment. Pyrotec (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. One of the things I've found is that it's really hard to write about technical subjects for a non-technical audience (I'm just not on the same wavelength).

I think your comments are very useful in showing me just how poor a job I've done in that respect. I didn't really consider the burden placed on someone without a technical background who turned to this article to find out about Scheme. The introduction gives a brief summary but the body doesn't really connect the dots. Tasty monster (=TS ) 20:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've written in BASIC and Fortran77 (and I corrected someone elses C++ program) and that was done in the late 1980s, but that article was hard going in the Distinguishing features. I'll keep it On Hold for a week, perhaps a couple, but after that .... Pyrotec (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment I'm tending towards the opinion that my writing style is the problem. It may be better to await the arrival of another writer who can take it in the right direction.

As it stands it's probably of most use to people already familiar with high level languages, and to computer scientists. That isn't a bad target audience, though I appreciate that it fails to meet the Wikipedia standard of providing an accessible outline of the language for the general reader. Tasty monster (=TS ) 12:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, I'm suggesting the addition of text, not removal. This: Lisp (programming language)#Syntax and semantics, I think, is a good way of presenting to the non-specialist the type of information that you appear to have in Scheme (programming language). It could be summarised and "piped" using {{main}}; what every way it is its done, more help is needed for the non-specialist. Presumably the specialist will use the Instruction manual rather that go to an encylcopedia. Pyrotec (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that could be a way forward. I'll see if I can draft something over the weekend. Tasty monster (=TS ) 12:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've waited since October or something for somebody to review this request, and I'm so grateful that you took the trouble to do it.

Your input is fantastic, giving insights I could not possibly gain for myself. On the other hand I have taken on other commitments since then. I'd like to get this right and I'd love to spend some time on it, if it's at all salvageable. If I can't make it soon, would you be prepared to act as a focal point for review of any new content proposals? If not I understand and I'm capable of finding new reviewers.

As I'll be working on making the article easier to understand, I anticipate that the reviewer would be telling me whether the proposed changes make the mud any clearer. I particularly value the input of those who, like you, do not have the experience I have spent several decades in acquiring. It's hard to get somebody up to speed in 10,000 words or so, but if a Wikipedia article I wrote could do that it would revolutionize my attitude to writing free content. --TS 01:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for your kind comments. I can hold this review open a bit longer, but it will have to be concluded fairly soon (say next weekend). I'm also happy to work with you on the article, but if my input becomes significant that would preclude me from reviewing it next time round at GAN (if it does not get through this time) (including a joint submission, if necessary): that just means that someone else would have to review it. Pyrotec (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this wrt your comment of 06:27, 9 May 2010, but just before saving realized it's not really about shaping the article but about your tone and its polarizing effects:

That's accurate and echos what I said. The museum, however, is taking pains not to alienate the unconvinced by labeling their doubts as rubbish. Or if "rubbish" was being applied to generally responsible news organs, we should be as charitable with them as we are with imperfect scientists. Yopienso (talk) 09:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this relevant? Wiki isn't labelling anyones doubts as rubbish, at least in the public articles (did you have anything in mind?). The talk pages are another matter; but then you don't know what the Sci Mus is saying on its internal venues William M. Connolley (talk) 09:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't relevant to you; that's why it's on Tony's talk page instead of yours. Yopienso (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the word "rubbish" referred in context to unscientific statements about global warming, and I had previously used the word "nonsense" to describe the notion that the Science Museum's new display will be "climate neutral". I think we're pretty much on the same page but we're not seeing eye to eye on the details. I want to avoid giving the impression that it's acceptable to misrepresent the science, because it isn't. That's where the line is drawn. Tasty monster (=TS ) 11:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I greatly appreciate your time and care. This is what's missing:

"We have come to realise, given the way this subject has become so polarised over the past three to four months, that we need to be respectful and welcoming of all views on it.”[1]

Eugenie Scott, unlike PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins, is a master of this in a somewhat different but related arena. I'm a teacher; you cannot mock a student and expect her to learn anything from you. You can feel smugly superior to him but you will never persuade him.

And I don't think we should dismiss alternate views as unscientific unless they are, e.g., "My Bible tells me seedtime and harvest, summer and winter, will never end. Global warming is a hoax!" Ross McKitrick's[2] and Paul Dennis's[3][4] research and conclusions are entirely scientific, yet diverge from the MS. Regards, Yopienso (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm aware of the scientific criticisms, and I don't make the mistake of lumping them in with unscientific rubbish.

In writing an encyclopedia we cannot predict what the opinions and biases of the reader will be--as a British observer from the sidelines I'm vaguely aware that American educators face almost insurmountable obstacles in teaching basics of the science curriculum that are taken for granted elsewhere, but undoing the harm done by broken school systems is well outside our remit. All we can do is present the science, and make sure it isn't cluttered with rubbish. The debate between NCSE and the critics of its religious outreach program are of no relevance to Wikipedia's editorial policies, and are only of very peripheral interest to me. Tasty monster (=TS ) 03:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. In attempting to delicately couch my thoughts so as not to offend I was obtuse. I was using my experience as a teacher and my observations of Scott, et al, merely as examples of drawing more flies with honey than with vinegar. Your dismissive tone alienates those that Rapley more diplomatically invites. Do you envision Wikipedia as a citadel for the smug enlightened, or an aid to educating the masses? If the latter, a more welcoming attitude will produce more positive results.

Rapley's stance:

We respect people’s right to disagree, and we will address the issues raised, but we always return to the fact that the weight of evidence supports the anthropogenic conclusion. The climate debate has become very polarised in recent months, and this has made even more important the need for a public space where people who agree, who are unsure, and who disagree that humans are affecting the climate system are able to explore the science and make up their own minds.

Thanks for your attention; I won't be pestering you. You are welcome at my talk page. Regards, Yopienso (talk) 05:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and agree with Rapley's point, but (and I've been trying to get this point through for some time) I see no point of meeting between his approach as a museum curator and ours as encyclopedia editors. What we're producing is a digest or reference work; any didactic use it may have is purely incidental and takes a back seat to our primary purpose.

Back when Wikipedia was getting started I suppose it was possible that we might move in a more didactic direction, but for whatever reason we didn't. We don't go out of our way to cater for readers who come to our work with preconceived ideas that have to be anticipated, discussed and catered for. In general, that is one thing encyclopedias do not do that some kinds of teaching material do. The reader has to acquire study skills and a basic understanding of how science works elsewhere, mostly from skilled teachers with specially adapted materials. Tasty monster (=TS ) 05:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a contributor to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neglected Mario Characters, you may be interested to know I have renominated this article for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neglected Mario Characters (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You previously commented on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect. A new version of the article has been created in article space at The Gore Effect and has been nominated for deletion. If you have any views on this, please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:

• The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
• Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
• Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
  • "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
  • "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
  • "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
  • "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"

The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.

• All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
• Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
• The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
• All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
• Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
• Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
• Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]