User talk:Maury Markowitz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attention: Unless otherwise requested I will answer messages here on my talk page to keep conversations together in one block, it is my hope this will make it easier for others to read them.

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or drop me a line. BTW, I like what you have done to the place. Cheers! --maveric149

Hello, Maury Markowitz. You have new messages at ErgoSum88's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.

[edit] wickelrumph

wickelrumph is kind of hard to explain without a picture. basically, it used long strips or bands of plywood that were glued together side by side. then, another layer of strips were glued on top in a different direction.

my source says it's actually strips of plywood. see Pfalz Aircraft of World War I (Great War Aircraft in Profile, Volume 4) by Jack Herris, at pages 30 and 32. that said, after looking around some more, i think it might actually be thin veneer strips. From what i understand, Deperdussin used veneer strips of tulipwood. i guess i'll change the article.

thanks. also, i thought your article on the Mercedes D.III was excellent.

thanks for the kind words, and for writing such excellent articles on the Mercedes D.III (i added a picture) and the Siemens-Schuckert D series.

[edit] Pfalz rudder

If its all right with you, I'd like to delete the references in the Pfalz D.III article to the shape of the rudder and vertical fin. That was actually a pretty common shape in German planes. See the Roland D.XV, D.XVII, Halberstadt C.V, CL.IV, CLS.I, Pfalz D.XV, LVG CIV, C.V, C.VI, and Gotha G.I. If it was something really different, like the Hannover's biplane tail, it would certainly be worth mentioning. But the D.III, I kind of don't see it.

[edit] XPLANE

Hi Maury, I got your note about the XPLANE article. It has been deleted by an admin. Do you know where deleted articles go? I intend to propose it for deletion review but have no idea where to find it or how to reference it.

[edit] Avro Arrow revisited

Maury, the article seems to be better wrtiten but I still think there should be a proper notes and reference section rather than the "more reading and viewing" section that is presently there. What do you think? Other editors have left the section in place but the idea of POV is present. Bzuk 14:41 3 January 2007 (UTC). BTW Happy New Year.

[edit] Avrocar again

Maury, please look over the article again- I've made some changes based on a recent review. BTW thanks for your support on another issue, specifically, the de Havilland Comet research. Bzuk 17:43 17 February 2007 (UTC).

WHILE YOU ARE AT IT, PLEASE REMOVE THE 'SILLIPUTTY' FROM MY OPUSCALGARY SITE. You may want to consult with someone who understands ip addressing.

[edit] PzKpfw IV

I think I have found the reason of the claim that KwK 40 was incapable of penetrating Sherman's frontal armor at combat ranges. The former wikist was refering to M4A3 with 64mm hull front and 103mm turret. That would make a lot of sense. -Chin, Cheng-chuan

[edit] Help

Our mutal Italian friend requires some help in editing, he is now contributing to the Ki-61 Hien and Ki-100. I can sort out some of the grammar and spelling, but I have corrected this countless times. He continues to make the same mistakes, not capitalizing months, using measures such as "ltrs." and other basic errors. I have written to him by email, posted on his home page and asked for other help from the aviation group forum. There is also another major issue that I haven't fully addressed but that is that most of the submissions are POV and sound like they are copied from magazines as well as being wholly Italian-centred- go figure, but still, much of the stuff is useless but I don't want to just hack and slash. What do you think? FWIW Bzuk.

[edit] Re: Toronto Meetup

Toronto Meetup Next: unknown (probably at Ferret & Firkin) Last: Saturday, October 20, 2007 (1PM at Ferret & Firkin) This box: view ‧ talk ‧ edit

[edit] Mid-Canada Line

Hi Maury, nice to hear from you, thanks for your comment. I tagged the article because, while it has general two references cited, it has no in-line citations or footnotes to show where individual facts come from. As Wikipedia:Citing sources explains citations should be included in all articles:

"Wikipedia is by its very nature a work by people with widely different knowledge and skills. The reader needs to be assured that the material within it is reliable: this is especially important where statements are made about controversial issues or living persons. The purpose of citing your sources is:

• To ensure that the content of articles can be checked by any reader or editor.
• To avoid claims of plagiarism.
• To show that your edit is not original research and to reduce editorial disputes.
• To help users find additional information on the topic.
• To ensure that material about living persons complies with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.
• To improve the credibility of Wikipedia."

The key thing is really the Wikipedia policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Without in-text citations it is very hard to tell where the information came from. Was it from one of the listed refs or was it something that someone added from personal experience (which as you know is not permitted in Wikipedia articles, as it is WP:OR)

The policy states it simply:

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question."

I hope this all explains the tag. I am hoping that some editor will be able over time to add the citations. - Ahunt (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The tag doesn't say it has "No references", it actually says " This article or section is missing citations or needs footnotes." which is true, it has no citations or footnotes. The policy (qv) says it needs them. Ahunt (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, sure it does. The References section. Those are citations. Maury (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that "citations and footnotes" mentioned in the tag are "in-line". That is why the template also says "Using inline citations helps guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies." It wouldn't say that if it were referring to any references. It is a call for in-line citations and footnotes, as Wikipedia:Verifiability says (qv). There is a completely different template for "no references" which is {{Unreferenced|date=May 2008}}. - Ahunt (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Check out "General references versus inline citations" in Wikipedia:Citing sources. Bottom-of-page refs are perfectly acceptable. Maury (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a "style guideline' and not a "policy", but it doesn't contradict the policy (qv).

I read it and what it actually says is:

"General references versus inline citations

Articles can be supported with references in two ways: the provision of general references – books or other sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article – and inline citations, which are mandated by the featured article criteria and (to a lesser extent) the good article criteria. Inline citations are references within the text that provide source information for specific statements. They are appropriate for supporting statements of fact and are needed for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, including contentious material about living persons, and for all quotations."

So essentially end-refs can be used, but it indicates that in-line citations are better and are required for all featured and good articles. I didn't tag it because end-refs are not allowed, but because in-text citations are better, prevent accusations of plagiarism and all the other reasons cited above. The tag says "This article or section is missing citations or needs footnotes", not "end references are prohibited". They key thing in both this guideline and the policy is that they are required if anything is challenged. I only started using them when I had end-referenced material challenged and removed in several articles. Now I footnote everything as I add it.

Anyway this is probably enough time on this subject. If you personally don't want to footnote this article then by all means remove the tag. I won't re-instate it. - Ahunt (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Maury: Just to let you know - I found a tag for this article that may be a better description. - Ahunt (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAC encouragement

Hi Maury, don't get discourage on the FAC. They generally run for at least a week, and yours has only been up for 2 days. If you are making good progress at fixing the issues that have been raised, then it may even be open longer. Reviewers change their opposes to support as their objections are met. Keep posting progress reports, and that will give us (the reviewers) an opportunity to strike our comments or help clarify our meaning. Karanacs (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry Karanacs, I didn't see your message until just now. Another edit pre-empted it in the diff. Thank you for your note. Don't worry though, I'm always this grumpy, not just during this FA! :-) Maury (talk) 02:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Ignition Facility

Hi. Saw your message. I'll try and get over there today. --Dweller (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Take it to PR... and be patient waiting for comments. Invite help from people at active WikiProjects and get in touch with the League of Copyeditors. Good luck... I look forward to supporting it at FAC in a few months. --Dweller (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems I do not understand prose as well as I thought. This is a fringe topic, so it's not surprising that it's so difficult to get help, especially after the wiki-lawyers chased the only other interested party. Maury (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Maury, I hope this FAC did not discourage you. There are some articles whose minor issues can be fixed during the course of an FAC, but this was not one of them. I think if you work with a strong copyeditor, an MoS expert, and a graphics-oriented person who can fix up your diagrams you will be well-positioned for another attempt. --Laser brain (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know anyone that could do this though, and I'm pretty eager to move on to other projects. I booked off time for the FA so I could respond quickly to problems as they came up, but I really don't want to spend more than I already have. I don't think any of the edits I was able to make have actually improved the article itself, and the ones it does need to improve it are clearly not for me to do. I'm perfectly happy with it the way it is, so I'll just move on. Maury (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Check this out. They'll help. You might have to wait a little, as they're usually bogged down. But definitely start by opening a Peer Review, perhaps with a focussed request for what you're asking for help with. NB fringe topic or not fringe topic, shouldn't and doesn't make a jot of difference at FAC and/or with the copyeditors. --Dweller (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think LoCE is borderline useless these days so I would recommend skipping it. For this or any other article, I recommend opening a Peer Review (as Dweller suggested) and tapping the volunteer list which is a treasure trove of people willing to get involved sorted by topic. --Laser brain (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys,I appreciate the effort, but as I said I've pretty much exhausted my interest here. If it's not an FA, it's not an FA. No harm done. Maury (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Maury, I'm sure it's frustrating that you're getting unclear feedback at WT:FAC; I've been under the weather and it's frustrating for me, too, when long-time FAC regulars don't dive in to give accurate answers when I'm busy or away, and since this is a Wiki that anyone can edit, sometimes you get inaccurate answers and feedback. Dweller and Laser are giving you good advice: the best way to move forward is to open a peer review, following the tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 and inviting everyone who participated in the FAC as well as volunteers culled from similar articles at WP:FA and the peer review volunteer list to comment at the peer review. By doing this, you'll also build a network of editors who will help you over the long term. You might also peruse User:Giano/A fool's guide to writing a featured article, which is helpful and humorous. NIF and LLNL are not at all fringe topics (especially not to Stanford and Berkeley physicists who went through there before the freeways and shopping malls and car dealers and windmills), and there are people who will help; browsing WP:FA will help you locate FA writers on similar topics. When I first came to Wiki, I was quite dismayed to find that I was literally the only person on Wiki who knew my topic, so I became a part of the FAC machine and built a network of people who could show me how to write a Wiki FA months before I brought Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tourette syndrome. Now, thanks to that article, there are a few more people on Wiki who know TS, but I was truly alone writing that article, so I understand your frustration. You also seem very unclear on how FAC works; I suggest first seriously digesting all of the instructions and links at WP:FAC to understand the process, and then observing some other FACs for a few weeks. It is not at all true that the last comment stands, and whenever I see someone ask for something on a FAC that is not grounded in WP:WIAFA, I (or someone else) will point it out. But this is Wiki, anyone can edit, and you will always get all kinds of feedback, some good, some less good. I hope you'll move forward with the PR and we'll see you back at FAC soon. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well as I said, I figured the article would go FA with some "crossing the T's" and set aside some time to work on that. But as it became clear there were larger problems and they were not going to get fixed in the FAC, then I basically lost interest. However, the experience has pointed out what I consider to be real flaws in the process, and I think it's much more important to focus on fixing those than trying to fix problems in a single article. Maury (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Titor

Hi there. I noticed that you made a couple mistakes while editing the article on John Titor. Even though you caught the mistakes and corrected them yourself, you can avoid these mistakes, and prevent excessive entries in the recent changes and the page history, by using the preview button before you save your changes. Happy editing! --ž¥łǿχ (ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 15:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Shortened notes

Case in point! They may or may not work splendidly in any one case, but in any case they don't work on their own and can not be compared with Harvard referencing or whatnot. Rather, they are a means to implement a particular system of referencing.

In taxon articles - which is what I do almost exclusively - it's usually one-third to one-half of the sources referencing the bulk of the text (and being used over and over again), and the rest being used once or twice. So MMV indeed. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

So then the next question seems obvious: is there a single system that might work in all cases? Perhaps that needs to be considered fully before jumping in with both feet! Not that that stopped me... Maury (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Data General Super Nova.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Data General Super Nova.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Chipotle

Maury,

I have reverted your removal of the "reads like an advertisement" banner. There has been much discussion about this banner on the Talk page, and users agree that the page does in fact, read like an advertisement. To remove it would go against what the community has already agreed upon. If you still feel that it's removal is warranted, please bring it up on the talk pgae after reading the thorough discussion on the topic. If an agreement is met, obviously it's best to remove it.

If you wish to respond, please let me know via my talk page, so that I can check back in and review your response. Ryancwa (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Galleries

Hi. Your recent edit to the Image use policy was a little far reaching, and relied a bit too much on a failed draft guideline. Such an important change needs more discussion. Having said that, I agree with you that the existing policy language is very confusing, and it is possible to read it as "all galleries are bad" (which shouldn't be the case). However, you edit goes too far the other way, and essentially guts the policy, except for full-page galleries. I suspect we can come up with some draft language that addresses your concerns, but doesn't allow for gallery free-for-all, and we can get some consensus for it. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, would you like to re-open the thread somewhere? Maury (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I just made a few point after your postings on the talk page. I note that this discussion is interesting. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Reading over the thread you posted, and following links from there, I think my original opinion is being re-enforced: there is a terminology issue here and from what I can see all of these comments are about "pages full of images and little else". Am I missing something in there? It is pretty long. Maury (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't read it that way at all. It seemed to me that while some editors believed all galleries to be good, and others believed all galleries to be bad, most believed some galleries to be good if done properly. This is more than a terminology issue. Even in a full, well-written article, a gallery can be useless (and even often detracts from the article). Where the gallery is annotated, and as a collection the gallery makes a valuable encyclopedic contribution to the article, it improves the article. In those cases, the gallery does more than simply illustrate the subject (arguably, one does not need a gallery to simply illustrate the subject), but rather it demonstrates the points being made in the article. For example, a gallery can show an under-construction Burj Dubai, the world's tallest building, slowly rising from the desert - that particular gallery needs more annotation, but it is a good use if a gallery. Conversely, there are galleries that simply contain a number of images of the topic, and even if annotated, but don't really add anything to the article. That is the sort of the gallery that the current wording, no matter how obtuse the wording, was intended to avoid. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I am definitely missing this discussion then. Can you link to a few pithy diffs perhaps? Maury (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Saturn (rocket family) & Milton W. Rosen

Hi, I think you might want to look at the last reference (Stages to Saturn ) in the article on Milton W. Rosen. It has a lot about the history from 1957 to 1962. Rosen played a major role in configuring the Saturn V. He was chair of the committee that added the extra F-1, as well as writing much of the Jan 1959 report to Eisenhower.

I modified your sentence about the Viking rocket, having read Rosen's book (ref 1 in his article) about that when I was the 8th grade, a year or two after it appeared. I think you might accurately say the Viking was inspired by the V-2, but it is not clear there was much detailed information, based on what I know. The engine was from Reaction Motors, who did the engine for the Bell X-1 before that. The turbopump may have been influenced by the V-2, but probably not, because they had trouble with it on the first two flights. The airframe was drastically different, as was the guidance.

I also recently have a copy of the original NRL satellite proposal, of July 1955, but still have not read it thoroughly.

Nice work on the Saturn article! Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, jump in! It's still a complete mystery to me how the Titan C was supposed to fit into this. I know the AF was going ahead with it anyway as their SLV-4, but it appears ARPA was either going to force them to use Saturn, or were hedging their bets. But how could ABMA claim not to have known about it at all? Maury (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Stages is online at NASA, it's a little easier to read there than Google. Maury (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)