Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:29, 10 March 2008

On December 19, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Agrostis gigantea, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

On 1 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Senecio congestus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Archive

• archive 01

a citation call

I have been having a problem with some of my ways. The thing that is bothering me the most right now is that I have made citations to papers in which I only read the abstract of.

My instinct tells me to remove the access date from it and that will be more honest.

If you know what to do in this situation, can you tell me? If you don't know what to do, I would be happy if you made a call on it.

The citation formalities -- they were all hardcoded before the web was even imagined. Possibly, adding a url location to the existing databases everywhere that used them was or even is quite a challenge. -- carol (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be ok if you leave the access data in. To be clear, do you mean the date you accessed the online abstract of the paper? If a url exists, access data should be included for the eventual day when that website moves or changes its structure, so that readers and editors know when you used that url so it can possibly be extracted from the internet archive. My sense is that it is best to give as much info as possible. Any one citation style (MLA, Chicago, etc.) is not endorsed by the Misplaced Pages MoS, so you're free to use whatever citation style you feel most comfortable with. The important thing is to make it consistent within the article, which you've done a great job at doing. Did that answer your question? --Rkitko 15:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I am quite certain that I have gotten my volumes and issues mixed up -- perhaps consistently at least. It does answer my question, it makes sense and I am not happy with it. Thank you very much! (I had enough 'access' where I used to live to be able to write an article with only papers that I actually read.) -- carol (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, do what makes you happy if it's reasonable. If providing access data is a bit more trouble than you want to deal with, then don't include it. I don't think it hurts anything if excluded. A determined editor or reader could always find the information from other citation data given. I sympathize with your difficulties in accessing journals. I no longer have free access to JSTOR, Proquest, etc. through an academic library. Until I go back to school, that probably won't change so I have to make frequent trips to nearby libraries (including some to your old stomping grounds in Michigan, I believe). --Rkitko 16:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The library that I would have tried first is a little hidden from the rest of the world. Part of my job for a while was to copy the abstracts each month from the journals as the scientists I worked with requested them. It infuriates me that there are things here (wikipedia) that are being called 'from the government' when anyone who worked for the government could look at it and know it is not one of theirs. What area are you at? I had the feeling you were on the west coast, I don't know where that feeling came from. The snow photographs from there this year have been beautiful and more like when I was a child. I really despise being here, the situation that brought me here, some of the things that has happened and the situation that I found once I got here.

I don't need to be happy with everything, in fact, that is usually not good. I do feel more comfortable with citing abstracts; it would be nice to know that there was something real in the paper also -- they are like advertisements somewhat, abstracts. When I was copying them, I started to lose a little respect for some of them (the journals) also. Nature's treatment of homeopathy in the late eighties was the exact example.

Rkitko, are we playing pokemon? -- carol (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly! I used to live in Olympia, Washington. About 8 months ago I moved back to Ohio. I'm much happier to be here than when I was on the west coast, so I can perhaps understand a bit of how you feel. Regardless, let me know if there's anything else I can help with here. Cheers, Rkitko 18:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

ping

User_talk:Hesperian#Humor_tax Gnangarra 15:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Npa5 —Moondyne click! 23:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

For things I didn't say? Or to provide opportunity to force pop-psychology cheez whiz? -- carol (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, for things you did say. You can pretend to be obscure, but the bottom line is that you've been engaging in ongoing trolling against Hesperian here and at Commons and your attacks are disruptive. If you wish your block to be reviewed by another administrator, feel free to use the {{unblock}} template. —Moondyne click! 23:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive to what? -- carol (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It is far more interesting to watch the tough ones get protected by the little fluffy kittens. I certainly wish I had thought to pack my micrometer along with a couple of books I miss -- I had no idea that the world and its participants would become of such fragility that a micrometer would be needed to measure strength. I have no problem giving the princess a break from such ruthless attacks.... -- carol (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)