User talk:Airborne84/archive 3

Thanks re MOS edit ... and SAMS

[Note: Originally, I inadvertently inserted this post as an edit to the previous section, but it's more appropriate as a separate section itself. --Jackftwist (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC) ]

Hi, Airborne84. Thanks for your comment re my deleting my last edit on the MOS Talk page. I agree (at least as a matter of general practice). And thanks, too, for the link to the policy. At the time I deleted the comment, I was quite rushed and didn't have time to search for the policy—one of the weakest in the universe of possible excuses, I readily admit, but I don't know --Jackftwist (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)how I could blame my dog for eating an on-line post.  ;-) Mea culpa.

Re that Talk page: I confess to being a "recovering" grammar pedant. (As with many of the much more serious addictions, I don't think one can ever completely recover from this particular penchant.) Even though I have strongly held convictions that are at odds with several MOS conventions, including to a lesser degree the one on sentence spacing, I had to learn early on in my professional career to abide by whichever style guide applied to the environment I happened to be working in. (Railing against a style manual doesn't usually endear you to your bosses, professional journal editors, etc.) Considering the anarchic state of writing (and speaking) in most environments these days, I'm simply grateful WP has any reasonable MOS at all.

As I remarked in an earlier post on that particular Talk page, its participants could probably make far more valuable contributions to WP, e.g., by devoting their (apparently) considerable time, talent, and effort to a backlog-elimination drive rather than engaging in these disputes, many of which (but certainly not all) amount to debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, whether toilet paper should unroll from the top or bottom of the roller, or whether the pepper goes in the shaker with the greater or lesser number (or larger vs. smaller) of holes. (No less an authority than the formidable Miss Manners has declared the latter 2 matters to be among the Great Mysteries of the Universe, to which there can be no "correct" answer. And the same goes for some of the hotly debated points on that Talk page.)

On the other hand, I sometimes can't resist the temptation to challenge some of the (many) comments masquerading as widely accepted conventions or practices that are, in fact, merely asserted conclusions and gross (over)generalizations, with neither any authoritative references, factual basis, or other acceptable type of support that meets WP standards. The discussion on sentence spacing seems especially rife with such baseless claims, e.g., "cascading" columns of white space. Many of the assertions about "standard" industry or professional practices seem particularly egregious in this respect. In particular, a very quick and unscientific survey of a wide variety of printed (vs. on-line) publications seems to show that there is little, if any, standardization of practice on sentence spacing. (My sample included a major national newspaper and news magazine plus books from roughly a dozen major publishers. HTML appears to have some innate formatting restrictions that aren't shared by various hard-copy printing methods.) Maybe someday I'll have some idle time to waste posting a comment about this on the Talk page ... or not.

BTW, I was pleasantly surprised to see the reference to the SAMS article in your list of your significant contributions. When I was academic dean at my own Service's intermediate service school, I had the pleasure of a guided tour of Eisenhower Hall soon after it opened. Needless to say, I was extremely envious of its superb facilities ... a sentiment I'm sure the faculty and students of CGSS shared! (The CGSS building itself—I forget its name, and the article on USAC&GSC doesn't seem to give it—was literally falling apart at the seams back then, reflecting the Army's unfortunate institutional practice at the time of grossly underfunding facilities maintenance.) I enjoyed the article, and the photo of the building is extremely nice. Best regards, --Jackftwist (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! There should be a new photo of the SAMS building in the article soon since it is moving from Eisenhower Hall. You were probably in Bell Hall, which has since been torn down.

Your points are well taken about unsupported claims on sentence spacing and other typographic conventions. I try to stay out of these discussions on the WP:MoS talk page now since there is close to zero chance of resolution on some of these topics in the near future. The one some months ago about typographic vs. dumb quotes was particularly lengthy and heated. Best regards, --Airborne84 (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, Bell Hall. How could I forget? I spent a very long year there one week, although not nearly as long as it would've seemed to the students, I'm sure. I trust that the new CGSS home is a worthy successor to Bell. And SAMS now has an even newer building? The Army seems to have gone on a building spree. (The Marines went on one in the mid- and late 90s. Maybe the Army decided it needed to catch up.) Hooah! (Or whatever the accepted spelling is.) --Jackftwist (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

GEN Odierno on Army leadership issues

You might be interested in the following article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/odierno-recent-war-lessons-will-aid-future/2011/07/22/gIQA57qOZI_story.html

In the print edition of the Post, this article appears in a regular column by this reporter called "Fine Print." Among other things, he specializes in plumbing the formidable depths of the Federal government bureaucracy's noteworthy written reports and Congressional testimony transcripts that otherwise have gone unnoted in the press. (And I use "bureaucracy" in its strict sense, not as a derogatory term.) I don't follow the column regularly because few of the articles interest me, but GEN O's name happened to catch my eye in the headline as I was turning the page and the problem is similar to others that I had to deal with in various forms over the years. Regards, Jack --Jackftwist (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

A very interesting article. Thank you! Best, --Airborne84 (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Telengard Screen Shot.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Telengard Screen Shot.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What is RfC?

You offer to help on scientific opinion of climate change page. I appreciate your offer. What is RfC and where I can learn more about it? --98.135.59.138 (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Please see WP:RFC.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Yup. An RfC is a reasonable way for you to get some additional editors from within the Wikipedia community—that might not normally watch the article in question—to take a look at the issue and weigh in.

Please keep in mind that the resulting achieved consensus may or may not turn out the way you desire. If it doesn't, I'd encourage you to not be discouraged and continue to repeat the same arguments. The best way to get results would be to then move on, continue research, familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines (of which there are many) and bring new sources to bear. Of course, an RfC might bring you some results though.

Finally, there are some nuances on Wikipedia that you ran afoul of at the article that we can discuss if you'd like. I understand you're trying to improve the article. But there are ways that will achieve the best results and there are ways that will just cause other editors to revert your edit and point to a Wikipedia policy, ignoring the point of your argument. If you need some more assistance, just ask here or ask an administrator. --Airborne84 (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Dan Barker as source

He has some training in religious studies, but he fails the Reliable Source criteria. There are better sources out there. I can suggest Bart D. Ehrman as someone whom you can use for instance. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you in a band by any chance?

Totally random question. Your username could be a reference to a specific band, or indicate that you're part of that band. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Didn't realize there was a band by that name though! --Airborne84 (talk) 13:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you go to Airborne school in '84? I did. If so, what was your class number? Rklawton (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, apparently 84 was an unused number when I was signing up for my account. :) --Airborne84 (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Short, horizontal lines

While some folks get into great arguments over them, I have to say that the distinctions among hyphens, en-dashes, and em-dashes have just never excited me that much. I'm perfectly content to have folks like you [fix mine though. :) LadyofShalott 01:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll admit, it's not exciting stuff. Always good as a conversation piece at a cocktail party though! Thanks for being a good sport. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Religion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Humanist

The Golden Rule (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Humanist

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited History of the United States Army School of Advanced Military Studies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Central Command (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Religiosity and intelligence

Hi Airborne84. Hope you're ok with this, but I have undone a number of your recent edits, as follows:
|On this one you added a 'citation needed' tag, although the source is clearly labelled in the next sentence.

|On this one you noted that the criticisms were from 'unnamed critics', despite the citation clearly showing who the criticisms were from.

I then came across this edit, tagged "(merged two sections, removed the "studies" label from the section header to allow analysis of scientific and academic bodies)". I'm not sure this was a good idea, but did not want to revert without discussion. I would like to revert/ adjust for the following reasons
- there is a clear disctinction in the results of the original two sections (religious behaviour increases with education, but religious belief decreases) so it made sense to leave them
- including the data about elite scientists (your stated reason for the merge) does not (agruably) relate directly to intelligence. This has been discussed at length on the article's talk page, leading to the deletion of that info in the past. If you agree, after reviewing the talk page discussions, please delete that section. If you disagree, I'm happy to discuss, here or on that talk page.

Please let me know if there is something I am missing here. I'm happy to discuss as needed.

Thanks for the note. I'll look at this again later and we can discuss. --Airborne84 (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I started a new discussion thread on the article's talk page regarding the last of your concerns above. One of your edits handled my other two concerns. Thanks! --Airborne84 (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Adjudication

I think that WP:BRD is one of the least understood and most misused Wikipedia policies. Everyone interprets it to mean that their changes should stay and the other guy's change should be reverted. :) I don't feel that this minor disagreement (at Christian ethics) rises to the level to require adjudication, especially as I may have encouraged Carlaude by posting on his Talk page that "I much prefer the new definition (and other changes) you have provided for Christian ethic" right before I began to rewrite the article. Thanks. Editor2020 (talk) 02:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible you're right. And I considered that. Regardless, I'm not going to re-revert his revert because it's poor form, IMO. But, I suspect that we'll eventually get things ironed out in a way that will satisfy everyone. I think everyone there is reasonable and trying to make Wikipedia better; perhaps Carlaude is just a bit trigger-happy on the reverting.

Anyway, I just don't have time to re-dig into the references right now. I will though. If the status quo remains, I'll only re-add items that the author clearly relates to the subject matter of the article. Thanks for your interest. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Request for advice

COuld you please provide me a diff link to the first edit refactoring your comments? I saw what was on the notice board, but did not see that there. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. It's here. I'll add it to the "Wikiquette assistance" page as well. Thanks! --Airborne84 (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sentence spacing

Hello, Airborne84. You have new messages at Talk:Sentence_spacing#Complete_rewrite.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks! --Airborne84 (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Common English usage misconceptions - contractions

For the past few years I have been tutoring people taking English courses at university. In my experience, English professors prefer to receive essays that contain no contractions. That is why I added a sentence to Common English usage misconceptions. The recent revision to this sentence no longer says what I meant. David F (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I agree in principle that many professors prefer no contractions. But the source you used didn't reflect that. It only speaks to users of that style guide. I'm sure you know that, as Wikipedia editors, we can only report what reliable sources say here, and cannot editorialize, regardless of our own credentials—at least as it stands now.

But I don't think the story need end there. I'm sure you can find a reliable source who states something along the lines of "many/most post-secondary school English professors eschew contractions." That would be a fine addition, and would enhance the article, IMO. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I followed your suggestion and added two reliable sources. Thanks. David F (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Hi. When you recently edited Silversword, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bard's Tale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Thats no problem glad to help. I think with the right reviewer it should certainly make a FA. It certainly has the potential. Well done on the work so far! -- Cassianto (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. When you recently edited Morality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aristotelian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Would you mind taking a look at the discussion at Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I think we need a third party intervention. Readin (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Teach the Controversy

Hi, could you please clarify how your edit fixed a comma splice? To my knowledge, a comma splice is where a comma separates two independent sentences, and, unless I'm mistaken, the sentence "With the December 2005 ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Judge John E. Jones III concluded that intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents"." isn't two comma-separated independent sentences. Thanks in advance. Regards, HMman (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC).

You're right. I didn't read the new sentence closely enough. I self-reverted, made a minor change, and the sentence reads better now, IMO. Thanks! --Airborne84 (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

CDS declined - Secular morality

Hi Airborne84. Although I support your suggestion to delete Secular morality and move the content of Morality without religion there, the talkpage discussion you reference is only two days old - not really long enough for anyone to weigh in on the debate. Give it a week or so to allow for any dissenters to lodge their objections, and then drop me a line; I'll be happy to move it. (If no one else pipes up with an opinion by then, I'll be happy to go ahead with it anyway). Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 08:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Airborne84 (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)