Contents
DYK for DNA walker
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Meson bomb DYK issues
Antony,
Earlier today the DYK hook for Meson bomb was removed after I pointed to issues with the original article's stating as unchallenged fact that the Soviet meson bomb research was the result of American disinformation efforts when the single source cited for this assertion (and the single source for this other than the article that came up in a search) should not have led us to state it as if it were an unchallenged fact. (See the article's talk page as well).
I am bringing this to your attention because you had approved the hook. I saw that the discussion there was primarily around how to word the hook, which seems trivial but suggests that someone knew deep down that the article could not establish the existence of an American meson-bomb disinformation program beyond one possibly biased interviewer's speculation and conjecture.
Just something to keep in mind for future reviews ... Daniel Case (talk) 23:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: Unfortunately this occurred while I was traveling in California, so I wasn't able to respond to the issues. For the record, I did look at the source and I took the following exchange as supporting the hook: "'Sometimes, as we know, you get simply disinformation. Have you encountered it?' 'Yes. Some time around 1960 we got information about the so-called meson bomb... Zeldovich says: "Nonsense!" Khariton did not believe it either. Nevertheless, the bosses decided to set up a special unit...' 'Which means that the disinformation worked as intended.' 'Yes'". It did not occur to me, however, that the interview itself could be considered unreliable, and I will take that into account in future reviews. Do you think this could have been fixed by adding to the hook something like "allegedly" or "according to one Soviet scientist," or do the problems go deeper than that? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- In this case, I think making it clear that it was not a proven allegation would have worked. Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
DYK for Janet Werker
— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
March events and meetups in DC
Greetings from Wikimedia DC!
Looking for something to do in DC in March? We have a series of great events planned for the month:
- On Wednesday, March 9, we'll host our first March WikiSalon at Cove Dupont Circle.
- On Friday, March 11, the National Archives will host the Women in the Civil War Edit-a-Thon.
- On Saturday, March 19, the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian will host the Color History with the Smithsonian! event, and we'll hold our second Accessibility Edit-a-Thon at the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library.
- On Sunday, March 20, the American Chemical Society will host the Computers in Chemistry Edit-a-Thon.
- On Saturday, March 26, we'll host our second March WikiSalon at Cove Dupont Circle, followed by our monthly dinner meetup at Vapiano.
Can't make it to an event? Most of our edit-a-thons allow virtual participation; see the guide for more details.
Do you have an idea for a future event? Please write to us at info@wikimediadc.org!
Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
California High Speed Rail
I saw the new map you put in, and I'm not impressed. I don't think it is an improvement at all: (1) It doesn't show the route, it implies it. (2) Also, the old one was an official map from the Authority. This is not, so it doesn't have quite the credibility. (3) The topology is a bit clearer, but it also doesn't show the major cities, either. (4) When you enlarge it, you loose the cities, so there is NO route information at all! So, in the end, I think this map loses good information. If you believe the old one should be replaced, you should choose one which is an actual improvement.
BTW, I'm in the process of getting permission to show the new route plan (from the new Business Plan). I've gotten informal permission, but their lawyers need to review the Wikipedia license.
I also don't see any mention in the initial section re the change to North-IOS. I don't know who removed it, but (1) this is a BIG change, (2) it has not yet been officially adopted, and THE PUBLIC IS STILL IN THE COMMENT PHASE SO IT IS ACTUALLY IMPORTANT THAT IT BE LISTED!!!, and (3) removing this was a really bad idea, since it is critical information re the project and I don't see it listed there in the text. Really stupid changes such as this one piss me off. To my mind, losing important information is NEVER a good idea! This is NOT a comic book ... it is supposed to be authoritative information source!
Robert92107 (talk) 07:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- The new map does need a few more tweaks, but there were problems with the old map too.
- The station names were barely legible even at the extremely large size and they weren't clickable, and the positions are not editable as plans change.
- We can actually add the route itself using the "image overlay" feature, I just need to find the time to do that.
- The colors didn't show the topography clearly.
- The major cities served are indicated by the stations, and I don't see the need to add minor city names, which are barely legible on the original map anyway.
- There's also the possibility to having a separate zoomed-in map for Southern California to prevent bunching, but I have to ask someone to do the footwork for this.
- As for the North-IOS text, none of it has been removed, I just moved it down to the "Route" section because the information was too detailed for the lead. You're right that it should be mentioned in the lead, so I'll add a more succinct summary back there.
- Lastly, (I think) you don't actually need permission to use CHSRA materials, as works made by the California government are not under copyright. Use commons:Template:PD-CAGov when uploading. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for putting the IOS-North info in the lead-in. I think it definitely helps.
-
- Re maps: (1) I do agree there were problems with the old map, but I personally found it acceptable. After all, every map is a trade-off. (2) As you know your new map doesn't list any of the Phase 2 cities. Maybe you should use a different color for Phase 2 sites? (3) It would also be good to show the tie-in with the Las Vegas line. (4) I think an overlay to get the route marked would be a great idea, but I'm not familiar with the method to do so.
-
- As to permission, I added another CHSRA map which was removed by the permissions section until I got CHSRA to sign their permission form. So, these days I'm not assuming anything!
-
- Robert92107 (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I added in the Phase II stations in a different color. I can add in the route lines (including the Las Vegas project) but it's moderately technically tricky, so it might be a few weeks before I get around to it.
- As for the copyright, there was a court ruling that works of the California state government aren't eligible for copyright... but it's possible that they're still trying to enforce restrictions even though they have no legal basis. I suppose if you want to keep a good relationship with them you'd have to do what they say regardless. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
-
DYKs for Cynthia Larive and Day-Glo Color Corp.
Cynthia Larive and Day-Glo Color Corp. have been nominated for DYK. This is my first time nominating, so let me know if you see any errors. Thanks for the suggestion and for guiding me to the appropriate resources! KLindblom (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Great! Just two minor suggestions: the status is "new" in these cases (see "Status" under Template:NewDYKnomination#Instructions for nominating), and there's no ellipsis after the hook. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)