User talk:Jc3s5h

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

ΔT

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Jc3s5h. You have new messages at Newty23125's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

terran computational calendar

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Jc3s5h. You have new messages at Chimeraha's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue

Books & Bytes

Eurasian Eagle-Owl Maurice van Bruggen.JPG

Volume 1 Issue 3, December/January 2013

(Sign up for monthly delivery)

Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!

The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:
Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%
Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC
New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers
Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors
Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration
Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting
...Read Books & Bytes!

Hello

There is a discussion HERE that may be of interest to you. Cheers, Mercy11 (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Editing comments

I see you edited your comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Century nomenclature from:

So we can adopt the position that the first year to be observed is 1 BC and hence the first century ended in 100; the general population is happy and the ancient sources don't offer enough information to falsify the choice.

to:

So we can adopt the position that the first year to be observed is 1 BC and hence the first century ended in 99; the general population is happy and the ancient sources don't offer enough information to falsify the choice.

The change text is highlighted above, but there was no mark-up on your edited comment. The edit fundamentally changed the meaning of your comment. When making such changes, especially after others have subsequently comments, you should mark up the changes so that others can clearly see what was changed, as this may impact how others' comments are interpreted: see WP:REDACT. I suggest you mark up the comment as follows:

So we can adopt the position that the first year to be observed is 1 BC and hence the first century ended in

100 99; the general population is happy and the ancient sources don't offer enough information to falsify the choice.

So we can adopt the position that the first year to be observed is 1 BC and hence the first century ended in <del>100</del> <ins>99</ins>;; the general population is happy and the ancient sources don't offer enough information to falsify the choice.

sroc 💬 08:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought about doing that, but no one had reacted to the comment, so I didn't. But since you noticed, I will mark it up now. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Links to youtube

I recently added links to youtube explanations to the values of Kepler's equation and the ellipse that you removed. First, let me stress that I only now saw your messages (after making 3 changes) so I was not trying to ignore your comments. I should note that these are pedagogical explanations of the derivations that are meant to help the reader understand the topic. There is no new results presented in these explanations and they do not represent new research. They simply address important issues that are not addressed in the article. Lets consider Kepler's equation. The derivation is not explained in the article. I urge you to look at the derivation presented in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqFrLvBnBGU, and judge for yourself wether or not it would be helpful for the readers and wether or not it represents new research. I would appreciate your response. Thanks in advance. Boaz Katz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boazkaka (talkcontribs) 16:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Since the source is not needed to verify the material in the article, but instead provides extra information, it should be an external link rather than a citation. WP:ELNO indicates in number 11 that links to personal websites should not be made unless the person who created the website is a recognized expert. User-submitted YouTube videos are in effect personal websites.
Also, the Conflict of interest guideline gives information about including information about yourself and your work. It DOES allow citing your own work if you are a recognized expert (and I think that would extend to external links). A recognized expert is described in the Identifying reliable sources guideline as an "established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications.: So if you have published articles in recognized astronomical or mathematical journals, I think it would be OK for you to add the link to the "External links" section. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

As an astrophysicist at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, which has published several papers in relevant journals such as the Astrophysical Journal and the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomy Society, I consider myself a recognized expert. I will therefore add the links as external links as you suggest. (the following signature has wrong time since I only learned now how to add signatures...) Boazkaka (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, Having thought about it a bit more, the derivation of Kepler's equation is not new information but rather supports the claim in the page- the validity of Kepler's equation. Given that this is a pure mathematical statement, a direct illustration which the reader can see and understand, allows him to judge for himself whether it is true or not. I therefore think that a reference rather than an external link is in place. More importantly, I am thinking of usefulness to readers who read this page and want to understand why this is true. Dear Jc3s5h, do you know why Kepler's equation is true? Do you care about knowing? I think a reference to an explanation would be helpful for the readers. Do you agree?

Here is a more generic point - I believe video (or a talk) is the best way to explain mathematics and science. It is not inferior to text, it is superior. Like text, the viewer can judge for himself, in a clear fashion, whether the argument is convincing. While the video is thus not less trustworthy, it provides many more communication features such as using the pointer and allowing the viewer to listen while looking. In my opinion, the main reason that most references are in text format is that we simply did not have an efficient way to produce and distribute videos until recently. It will take a lot of time until the power of video as a way to communicate science will be fully appreciated.

Unless I am mistaken, there is no way to incorporate video in wikipedia. Do you agree that when appropriate, links to explanation videos are a good solution?

Best, Boaz Boazkaka (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it is usually easier to tell if a written source verifies the information in Wikipedia; videos are apt to be more subject to interpretation than written sources. Also, passages in written sources can be more easily reviewed several times to be sure of the interpretation than video sources. Often, articles are vandalized, and the next editor who comes along is interested in quickly verifying which information was correct and which was the vandalized version. Searchable electronic text is best for this; printed text is next best (if the editor has access to it), and video is the most difficult for this use. I would not like to see a video used instead of a written source whenever that can be avoided.
Whether to treat a video as an additional citation or as an external link is not so obvious. External links don't get quite as much scrutiny as citations, so a video by an expert who's name is not immediately recognizable is more apt to be deleted as a citation than as an external link. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I see your point about verifiable sources. I think that very short videos are o.k. in this respect since its easy to quickly check if they make sense. I try to make videos that contain 1 slide so you can immediately see the argument. I prefer citations given their usefulness. Citations are given in context. I'll take the risk with additional editors changing this. Boaz Boazkaka (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I now realize that links to youtube from Wikipedia are hopeless as 3 editors already removed my links to different values without even trying to see if the explanation was helpful or not. This is very unfortunate since it makes a huge resource of information and pedagogical material (by numerous people) inaccessible . If you have ideas how to implement video to Wikipedia or make links that will stay there I will be very happy to hear. Otherwise I give up.

I think you guys have the wrong approach: you ask yourself- is this verifiable? This is the wrong question - information on Wikipedia is never reliable. It could be very helpful though. You should ask yourself - is this helpful.

Best, Boaz Katz Boazkaka (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I think this is an issue that extends beyond Wikipedia. Wikipedia essentially serves to summarize and collect reliable sources. Many other Internet sites run by people who are unknown to the general public do the same. It would be helpful if sites like YouTube which could be the sites that get collected, had a better mechanism to indicate the qualifications of the people or organizations that upload videos. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Leap year tag

Regarding your tagging of Leap year: I appreciate your concern about this. The number of people, e.g., who loudly proclaimed during Y2K that 2000 was not a leap year was truly frightening. But your tag is probably not the right tag in this case. (Do you seriously contest the accuracy of the algorithm?) -- Elphion (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the tag to {{Refimprove section}}. Although, the accuracy of the algorithm can be nit-picked in that it does not state a valid range, and does not work for years stated in BC notation. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the setting of the algorithm needs some verbiage as you suggest (including that "year" is an integer). I think it would help diffuse things if you contributed suggested wording to the talk page. I think nailing down a "definitive source" (my interpretation of your request) is not really viable, for a variety of reasons (e.g., WP is not in the business of parroting external sources, and the value of WP depends on the expertise and conscientiousness of its editors). It would suffice, I think, to add a <!-- note --> to the section saying that the algorithm is the result of consensus on the talk page, and proposed changes should be discussed there first. -- Elphion (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
If the algorithm is a straightforward implementation of the verbiage from the Naval Observatory and Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac, does it have any value? A reader capable of verifying the correctness of the algorithm from those sources is equally capable of implementing it him/herself from those sources. The section has a long history of changes and challenges.
An analogous problem may be found at "Gregorian calendar". People kept messing with the leap year rule in the lead so often that an exact quote from a reliable source had to be used so that editors with no expertise in calendars could know when to revert the ill-advised edits. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but in both cases, the article has been almost immediately corrected. The problem of the clueless editor (even clueless admins) will always be with us no matter how iron-clad the sources. For better or worse, we allow edits from just about anywhere; it is the vigilance of editors that keeps the information accurate. -- Elphion (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Those correcting bad edits may be coming from a few different directions. It might be someone who has the page on his/her watchlist because he/she is interested in the topic. Such an editor has a better chance of figuring out if the source actually supports the article or not when this isn't crystal-clear. But the editor might be someone who noticed an unskilled editor, or an editor crusading for his/her POV, on some other article. So the editor tries to clean up the undesirable edits, even in articles where the cleaner isn't especially skilled. So it is helpful if frequently-messed-with passages are backed up by sources that obviously support the material. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Another thought is that if editors acting in good faith are constantly changing a passage, that is evidence that whatever sources are there are unpersuasive and better sources should be found. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Disagree that the edits are due to poor sources; they are from people, as you indicate, who don't bother to read the articles or check (or believe) the sources. Determined clueless editors don't care (and can't evaluate) whether the source is reliable anyway -- we will still be reverting such edits regardless of the quality of the source. As for good-faith edits, if there is in fact a problem, that's what the talk page is for; that's the WP model for handling disagreements like this. I don't object to your providing a sterling source (it can't hurt), but the dynamics of WP depend critically not on the sources but on the editors. In the meantime, the current pseudocode is obviously correct, reasonably transparent, and sufficiently efficient (though as we agree it needs a bit more documentation). -- Elphion (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Your reversion of me

Re: this reversion. The "next sentence" which I referred to in my edit summary says "If either or both endpoints are in a 'mixed' format (containing two or more of month, day, year) a spaced en dash ({{snd}}) is used". The example I removed was June–August 1940. Well, "August 1940" is one of the endpoints and it contains two of the specified components (month and year), so a spaced en dash should be used. Why do you disagree?

Also, you said "I don't know what 'contraindicated' means in previous edit summary, no medicine is being practiced here." My American Heritage Dictionary defines "contraindicate" as "To indicate the inadvisability of." That's the entire definition, with absolutely no mention of medicine. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 19:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)








Creative Commons License