Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:36, 8 June 2010

Phineas Gage

G'day, I've seen this article steadily improve over the last 8 months, under your guidance, and I wanted to drop in and say Thank you!. I love that topic, and it is great to see that you're dedicated to improving the article. Have you seen this article? Their images in Figure 4 are free content, which means we can upload them to Commons, and include them in this biography if you think they would be useful. If you ever need some technical assistance, come and grab me. John Vandenberg 03:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate the appreciation. I've put off updating the cites too for long, because I haven't had the patience to learn the markup, and there are so many decisions needed about reference style and so on. I wonder if (after I make a go at learing the ins and outs myself) I might ask for your guidance on technical points and/or for help in actually putting the cites into markup (there will be scores of them!).

The Kelley paper I haven't studied carefully, but it seems to present a visualization method for brains and skulls in general, using Gage only as an example; I don't think it claims any new analysis of the path of the tamping iron, which is the critical issue. Also, in Figure 4 the tamping rod appears to be much smaller than the 1-1/4 inch diameter of Gage's tool -- note the US quarter also shown, which is just under 1 inch in diameter. But I could well be wrong on all of this, and I haven't been in touch with the authors. Thanks again for taking the time to contact me. EEng (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The citation voodoo is documented at Misplaced Pages:Citation templates.

If you need a hand, come and grab me.

The important aspect of the Kelley article is that the multimedia in it can be integrated into our Misplaced Pages article, if it would be useful.

He contacted us at Talk:Phineas_Gage#Phineas_Gage_skull_replication, and I have spoken with him briefly via email a while ago. John Vandenberg 21:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of my edit on Gage

I've always been curious about people who revert things rather than simply adding a tag. Reversion is for cases where one fancies themselves an expert on the subject, and is pretty sure the addition is wrong or unsourcable. But this is not such a case. But the tamping iron burial is a very commonly known bit of data about Gage, and obviously your bookshelf lacks John Fleishman's book on Phineas Gage where the burial of the rod with Gage, and recovery of them both by Dr. J.D.B Stillman is mentioned on page 59 (Shattuck takes them both east that December, to Harlow). You can actually find the text if you google "Phineas Gage burial". No, I didn't add the ref. I'll leave it for you do to, as penance for doing things wrong on Misplaced Pages. Don't revert other people's stuff unless you're sure you know what you're doing. SBHarris 22:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This book doesnt appear in Worldcat, or either of the two university libraries I can quickly check directly, however it is on Amazon and reading lists. I've found the book in Google books as sbharris mentions, and the text of p 59 reads:

With her son-in-law and the major of San Francisco, who happens to be a physician, standing by as witnesses, Phineas's coffin is unrecovered and carried to a shed. There, Dr. J. D. B. Stillman, a local surgeon, removes the skull. The huge fracture on the forehead is unmistakable. Dr. Stillman removes something else from the coffin-the tamping iron that Phineas carried everywhere, even to his grave.

John Vandenberg 00:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Though I regret that you were offended, I believe that my action in reverting your edit was fully justified. If you will be so kind as to wait a few days, I will follow up with a full explanation. In the meantime, unless you object, I think it would be best to if I transfer this discussion the article's talk page. EEng (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No, go ahead and transfer what you like. SBHarris 20:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've summarised this discussion at Talk:Phineas_Gage#Burial_of_the_rod. --John Vandenberg 11:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I've posted a complete followup at Talk:Phineas_Gage#Burial_of_the_rod. (Jayvb, thanks for transferring and summarizing the discussion.) EEng (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've quickly reviewed your post, and agree we shouldnt reproduce this as if it was fact if the historical record and accounts closer to the event did not mention it. I'll keep watching. John Vandenberg 00:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Jayvb, thanks again for your interest. I would like to bow out of this discussion, and wonder if you might intercede to calm things down should the other party insist on continuing despite there being no new evidence on the table. (And that might be best done, should it be needed, on the article's talk page for all to see.) Hey, and thanks for cleaning up the references.EEng (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion will calm down as it focuses on what sources are available, and what they say. Sbharris has mentioned some that will be worth finding and checking. If it is often mentioned in reliable sources that the rod was buried with the body, we should mention this in the article while also describing the level of disputation of this fact. Doing this will help readers know that we havent simply omitted it - i.e. we know, and we warn readers to not state it as fact without checking the cited sources. John Vandenberg 05:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion continued at Talk:Phineas_Gage#Burial of the rod.

Lowell House

• Per your question on your edit summary, I guess I will stop you. Please stop vandalizing the Lowell House article. Alanraywiki (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Gracious! Don't get a knot in your knickers! The question was rhetorical and did not require a reply. l admit that mischieviousness got the best of me, but in all modesty, even including my overwrought condemnation of these unhappy spreaders of ill tidings the article was immeasurable improved for the concurrent shrinkage of verbosity, steadying of tenses, crookeds made straight, and rough places plain.

For those who may be wondering, Mr. Alanraywiki was giving me a well-deserved scolding for my insertion of the following text into the article on Harvard's Lowell House:

Vandalizing was not really the right word. It was more like creative writing run amok. Let's try to keep Misplaced Pages more serious, okay? Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Newly discovered Daguerreotype

EEng, nice job cleaning up my initial, humble effort at reporting the newly discovered Daguerreotype. The LA Times has also reported the discovery, available on their website. I have a copy of the journal article if you'd like to see it. The discovery caused quite a stir on 16 July 2009. The discoverer's website was overwhelmed and they quickly upgraded to a better server. Their experience is reported on their Flickr page.Danaxtell (talk) 04:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have regretfully reported your edit warring

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:EEng_reported_by_User:Gavia_immer_.28Result:_.29. I do not like to have done this, because you have undoubtedly improved the Phineas Gage article, but I don't believe this can be resolved until you acknowledge that no one else sees a copyright issue with this image. Please add comments you wish at the link I've provided. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Please can we keep the image off the article, and have a discussion about this? I would hate to loose EEng because he was blocked for preventing what he believed to be a copyright violation. John Vandenberg 07:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Final warning: if this is a copyvio, I'm sure other people will remove it. EEng doesn't need to break WP:3RR for wiki's sake. Anything else that looks like a 3RR vio will result in a block William M. Connolley (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Re . Nonetheless, the warning stands. You're not a one-man crusade against copyvio William M. Connolley (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Re . This isn't a court. Don't expect a formal process. WP:BURO William M. Connolley (talk) 09:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Lobotomy

Hi,

I've been expanding the lobotomy entry a little bit and, as it's really the first wikipedia entry that I've done and I see that you've done some editing of the page previously, I was wondering if you could perhaps have look over the page to see if the changes that I've introduced so far are ok? Thanks Freekra (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added some commentary on Talk which I hope you'll consider constructive. I've got some deadlines over the next 4 weeks so I won't be able to do much more than cormment for now, however. But keep at it, please. EEng (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks EEng. Very useful. Freekra (talk) 12:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Chebyshev's inequality

Hi! I have restored some of the material you removed from Chebyshev's inequality. I think it is relevant and important, as I explained in the edit summary. If you think otherwise, let's discuss it on the talk page. BTW, I think it would create a more productive atmosphere if you avoided words like "bizarre" and "unilluminating" when referring to other people's contributions. Best wishes, --Zvika (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC) I was rude, and I apologize. But the idea that there's "nothing tighter" than the C. bound is a tricky one, and the exposition of that example, as it stands, indeed has serious problems. The spirit will probably move me in a week or two to see what I can do. EEng (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, saying that a bound is tight is a rigorous mathematical statement. It means that there exists situations in which the bound is obtained with equality. The practical implication is that the bound cannot be improved unless further assumptions are introduced. This seems to me more or less what is said in the article. --Zvika (talk) 07:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That the article makes a "rigorous mathematical statement" ... "more or less" pretty much took the words right out of my mouth. Again I apologize for my rudeness, and someday (soon?) I'll make a change and I hope you'll see what I mean. EEng (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Phineas Gage

Thanks for the invitation. I'll try to take a look at it soon. Do you intend to try a GAC?--Garrondo (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know much about all this rating stuff, but if you think that makes sense why not? As you know Gage has been in the news a lot in the last six months and the article gets a lot of traffic. EEng (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well; it is more complicated than that. If you post it at WP:GAC a reviewer would make comments and say if it fullfills GA criteria or not. It will probably be a better idea after some editors review it.--Garrondo (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That's why I was asking you first, I guess! EEng (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the article. It is great to have a free article from McMillan summarizing his point of view, instead of having to buy his book. I'll try to read it if I have time (as you say time is what always lacks :-) ). Nevertheless it still seems more of the same. We already know what McMillan thinks, but the problem is that from my point of view it is probably far from consensus among experts. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Abraham Zapruder

Hi. Thanks for your work there. I think 'unfortunately' is a little POV there; would you mind elaborating your reasons at the talk page please? --John (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion continued at Talk:Abraham Zapruder.

Lee Harvey Oswald

I'm in awe of your copy editing, it's a real object lesson in how to take sentences that seem ok, but then transform them into something much more fluid and logical. Even though you make it seem easy, I'm sure it takes a lot of time. I think it's an amazing skill and I'm studying your changes closely to try and learn as much from them as I can. Thank you. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)