User talk:Lou Sander/Archive4

Edit war on minimum wage

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Minimum wage. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. CRETOG8(t/c) 15:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A notice has been placed on WP:3RR. Dlabtot (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You have broken 3RR. I would be blocking you, except you don't seem to have had a warning *before* your last edit. In exchange, I've reverted the article to where it would have been if you hadn't broken 3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the consideration. The warning came AFTER I had opened a polite and rational discussion HERE. Previous discussion with reverter Dlabtot had been a bit trollish on his part. Mightn't it be better if the article were restored to the state it was in when I started the discussion? Lou Sander (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from posting further personal attacks against me. Dlabtot (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

In lieu of edit-warring or personally attacking those you disagree with, I urge you to follow Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures. A third opinion wouldn't be appropriate because this is already a disagreement between you and three editors who disagree with you. So if you are really set on this, perhaps you should think about filing an RfC. Dlabtot (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not going to fiddle around with which version I revert to. My intent was to avoid "rewarding" you for breaking 3RR. And I advice caution as regards WP:CIVIL: you can just about get away with such remarks on your talk page (and even here they count against you; I advise striking them), but not elsewhere William M. Connolley (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a pretty experienced WP editor, and it's been years since I've heard any mention of incivility by me or others. Please help me understand how I have been incivil. (And I don't understand how my conversation with William M. Connolley has morphed into a three-way). Lou Sander (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well its just as well you didn't make that claim before my determination, or I'd have blocked you. There is no excuse for an experienced editor breaking 3RR. Labelling someone a reverter isn't great, and combination with the trollish makes it worse William M. Connolley (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for enlightening me. I must confess that hardly any of my edits ever get reverted even once, and I hardly ever revert anyone else's without a good and clearly explained reason. I'm aware that 3RR exists, but it's so far from my normal experience that it isn't something I'm usually conscious of. Sorry for the transgressions, and thanks again for the enlightenment. Lou Sander (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Scones

Hello! I don*t find my scones, I usually make them myself :). Scones should be warm and fresh. Maybe you should try it! Smell wonderfull....

h ttp://ezinearticles.com/?English-Scones---Delicious-English-Scones-Recipe&id=862773 http://www.instructables.com/id/Perfect-English-Scones/ http://www.cakebaker.co.uk/history-scones-griddle-cakes.html

http://www.kitchenproject.com/history/Scones.htm http://whatscookingamerica.net/History/HighTeaHistory.htm

http://www.thenibble.com/REVIEWS/main/breadstuffs/scone-history.asp

I don't know what you are looking for, but I hope you can find something here!

Warrington (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There are sources here I think [1]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, why did you - or others - thought that runny hunny was not a scone? Those might looked like some kind of home made scones to me. I am not adding the image again, I am only curious...

Warrington (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It is from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and it is promoting honey, not baked goods. Since biscuits are hugely more popular in the U.S. than are scones, and some scones are identical in appearance to American biscuits, we inferred that the baked goods must be biscuits. No proof, just common sense. Lou Sander (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

My recipe for making a scone is to leave a nice biscuit out until it's hard and stale. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Typo redirect Finschaffen

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Finschaffen, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Finschaffen is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Finschaffen, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Board of Directors

On Board of Directors - do you know of any board that couldn't be accurately described as "small"? I figured that "small" would be accurate in more than 99% of cases - are there any boards larger than, say, 30 people? Tempshill (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't point to any specifically, but I know it does happen that the size of a board gets out of hand. If there's a citation of "small" somewhere, it could be put in. Otherwise, it's only somebody's opinion. Maybe a very good opinion, but really just an opinion. And what is "small?" Nine people? Ninety? Three? Lou Sander (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Baking powder

Hi Lou, thanks for the encouragement. I've just made some edits to the baking powder page to incorporate these sources as inline cites. Just so you know, I found these references while writing up a post about baking powder in my blog (see it here), but I don't know if it's proper to link to it in the main article because a) are blog posts usually considered reliable enough as cites? and b) I guess that would be too much self-promotion, wouldn't it. Also, Question 1: I've compiled a list of aluminum-free baking powders in my post, but I don't know if they belong in Wikipedia because a) would it be too US-centric? and b) can we link to commercial product sites? Question 2: I've also reference some books (dead tree versions) in my post, but I don't know how those would be cited here. BW95 (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I just read the policy on verifiability, and blogs are generally not considered acceptable. Got it. BW95 (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd go ahead and Be Bold. Your blog has lots of good stuff in it, so I'd definitely link to it. (A blog with political opinions is different from one with authoritative info about chemistry.) Put it in the External links section. I think it's proper to link to worthy commercial sites there, too. If somebody objects, maybe remove it. For stuff that you put in the WP article itself, it's best to include a reference to a reliable source outside your own blog. It doesn't have to be an online source. Baking powder is a pretty non-controversial subject, so people will probably cut you a lot of slack on whatever you put in, referenced or not. I always walk the extra mile to include references, just in case some idiot wants to change what I've posted. (And there are LOTS of idiots in this world.) If somebody changes something I've posted that has references, I just revert their changes and make my edit summary something like "Please don't change (or delete, or whatever) referenced material."

When I started working on it, the Baking Powder article had a lot of unreferenced garbage in it (as I remember). All I know about baking powder is what I read on Wikipedia, but I think I've done some good work in improving the article. It can really use a lot of the stuff that's on your blog and in your sources. A good strategy is to make the article a good summary for casual readers, but provide links to deeper stuff for those who are interested. It's very useful to do the external links as I did them in Baking Powder -- give some sort of description of what the link leads to. Something like "extensive information on chemical composition" is also very good. If it's put together right, a Wikipedia article can be a hugely useful portal to lots of authoritative information on a topic. You seem to have the talent to put one together right. Just keep at it until you learn the editing and formatting tricks -- they really aren't very difficult once you start to use them. Lou Sander (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ann Coulter

The Canada-Vietnam (and some other section) was removed from the Ann Coulter article. Since you had commented ont hat earlier, I thought you'd know what does and doesn't belong there. Flatterworld (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm glad this stuff is gone. It's a minor incident about one television interview, and most of the controversy was bogus, depending on people's interpretation of what she said. I collected some facts HERE for those who are interested. Lou Sander (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:AHPLeadImage.png

Thanks for uploading File:AHPLeadImage.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it. Lou Sander (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Fact tags in Minimum Wage article

I see your point. I'll try to add cites for all the basics.radek (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Pissant shirt

Haha, well, here's the shirt I found for the article: http://www.redbubble.com/people/majikat/t-shirts/2676020-4-pissant-proud which may even be better for you than the one I was thinking of just had a small logo on it, that is in the shape of the Adelaide United logo.

Although, I feel a bit bad for giving someone an interest in Adelaide United, as I'm a mad Melbourne Victory supporter! Ah well, hope my addition to the article has been at all helpful. Mikhael04 (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Waldemar F. A. Wendt

Thanks for the kind note. It's always nice to hear that someone finds an article useful -- kind of makes the whole thing worthwhile! - Morinao (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

When I wrote that article, I couldn't find very many references about him. If you want to pick up where I left off, I think 90% of my information was contained in the excellent Virginian-Pilot obituary that had been posted on one of the boards on the USS Rankin website (seems to be a dead link now, otherwise available from the newspaper's pay archive). The Heaton book has a photo and a rather spotty summary of his service record; I wouldn't necessarily try to find it since most of its info is contained in the Virginian-Pilot obituary, and the remaining Heaton data (like his parents' names) was probably gleaned from an entry in Who's Who (which I didn't know to look for at the time). -Morinao (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Analytic Hierarchy Process

There are four changes, two are punctuating "et al.", one is removing the (duplicated) text of a named reference and one is putting references in numerical order. Rich Farmbrough, 19:18 20 May 2009 (UTC).

Henry Kissinger

Here is what I posted on Vexorg's page, my thinking on the Kissinger quotes:

Take a look at Wikipedia:Quotations, here are a couple of excerpts:

"editors should try to work quotations into the body of the article, rather than in a stand-alone quote section. " "while quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them" "Quotations should be put in context and given any necessary explanation."

and from the When not to use quotations section:

"the quotation is being used to substitute rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias. This can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided."

Thats where the NPOV comes in, all of the quotes make Kissinger look callous, autocratic and wholly amoral. Bonewah (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on my talk page. It is so refreshing to interact with people, like yourself, that are sincerely interested in writing a great encyclopedia and are receptive to reasoned discussion. Bonewah (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: D. stram.

I wasn't aware of a discussion concerning the song, my edit was intended to be pure housekeeping and not a content dispute. I removed the line with the duplicated ref section because I thought of it as non-notable, and it was unsourced and displaced. If the removal was in error, feel free to restore and accept my apologies. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Article translation

Hello - yes, I think I can put your article on Analytic Hierarchy Process into Swedish. It looks interesting and solid and I've actually clocked some work as a translator between Swedish, English and French (any direction!) It will take a little while though, I'm busy both with paid work and with some historical projects for WP - the English one, mostly. /Strausszek (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Your diagrams look very useful. I don't think there will be any need to re-text them in Swedish; most people over here understand English with considerable fluency and anyone who will be looking up that article will grasp it without trouble. We'll just use them as they stand. /Strausszek (talk) 09:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Yerba Mate Association of the Americas

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Yerba Mate Association of the Americas. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yerba Mate Association of the Americas. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Philadelphia Arena

Thanks for reverting back my edits on Philadelphia Arena. I don't why that other user undid all my additions, especially because I added references. Doesn't make any sense. Smel4727 (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. His edit just seemed totally irrational. That happens sometime. Lou Sander (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)