User talk:Eb.hoop/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Talk:Columbus

I've warned him before about using talk pages as a forum. Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Sorry, got side-tracked, I've started it. Travelling most of tomorrow though. Bed now. Dougweller (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Max Weber GA process

Please do not add to my workload by changing the article in ways not specified at Talk:Max Weber/GA1. Let's get the article to GA level before making significant changes in meaning and interpretation. Binksternet (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Josemaría Escrivá

Hi Eb.hoop, stop making that many changes[1] in one single edit. Next time you do this, I will revert it alltogether. --Túrelio (talk) 06:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Economics Barnstar

I hearby award to you the Business and Economics Barnstar:

		The Business and Economics Barnstar
		For your fine contributions in Economic History. Nice job! LK (talk) 04:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Aurora Islands‎

Thanks, but if Gould is used, he should be cited as a source for the parts of the article where he is used, surely? Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

That was my intention, since I have the book at hand. But I might not get to it immediately. - Eb.hoop (talk) 06:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Cadaver Synod, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bulgarian (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, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Good job on Gibbs

You are doing good work revising the article and adding to the information on J. Willard Gibbs. I have started translating more of the article into French, including some of your edits. Dirac66 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Anglo-Irish in the Americas

Your comment that there was no significant Anglo-Irish emigration to the Americas is only partially true and only in semantic terms. The majority of early Irish emigrants were Protestant Irish, mostly Episcopalian. They were not then known as Anglo-Irish but were known as Irish or in later years when poor Catholic Irish started arriving as Protestant Irish. The later Catholic and Presbyterian (Scots-Irish) Irish emigration caused by the Famine eventually evened up the numbers but in the early years of the USA an Irish American was nearly always a Protestant who would have been known in later years as Anglo-Irish in Ireland. Dabbler (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Dabbler, The contents of the article on the Irish American seem to indicate that most of the Protestant immigrants to the US were Presbyterians, not Episcopalians, and form the group that now identifies as "Scotch-Irish" (though before the wave of Catholic Irish emigration they called themselves simply "Irish"). Also, it seems logical to me that Irish Episcopalians, often being educated and land-owning, would tend not to emigrate, except to England or the British colonies. But if this is mistaken, please feel more than free to edit the article accordingly (providing, of course, adequate citations). - Eb.hoop (talk) 05:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It may seem logical to you that they would not emigrate, but they were not all from rich land owning families, most professions such as a military career, medicine and the law were not open to Catholics and a number of middle class Catholics converted, including at least one of my own ancestors. Other descendants of that ancestor were just that sort of emigrant. They became quite a dynasty of medical and legal professionals in Baltimore (and also in Australia) I have a number of remote cousins in that area who are still Episcopalian. The problem with references is that they were all called Irish or Irish Protestants and never Anglo-Irish, so how can you tie them into the article and claim that they were proto-Anglo-Irish when the term was never applied to them. it would be OR. Dabbler (talk) 06:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Dabbler, I think it would be OK to explain that in the US, Anglican/Episcopalian immigrants from Ireland would usually identify themselves simply as "Irish." It wouldn't be necessary to attach to them the phrase "Anglo-Irish," since the purpose would be simply to draw a distinction with the Presbyterian "Scotch-Irish," as part of the same paragraph that makes the distinction between the Anglo-Irish and the Ulster Scots within Ireland itself. But please do this only if you can find a reliable published source that makes this point. - Eb.hoop (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Gibbs-US-stamp.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gibbs-US-stamp.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I was quite impressed by the Gibbs article as a GA candidate, but the stamp controversy will kill its chances unless the controversy gets resolved. As I stated on the discussion page, I can easily split off the section into a philatelic stub article. I saved off the image, just in case they vote to delete. The way certain administrators seem to be interpreting Wikipedia copyright policy on stamps, it would seem that they believe that stamps can only be displayed on purely philatelic articles, which I don't think was the intention. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

GA review started

Hello, Eb.hoop. You have new messages at Talk:Josiah Willard Gibbs/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reference 43

Hi. Good luck with the GA nomination. I see that the reviewer is unhappy with the inclusion of reference 43. Just in case you don't know why, the problem is that the "Encyclopedia of Human Thermodynamics" is a package containing both legitimate thermodynamics with much nonsense about human behavior being governed by thermodynamic-like concepts. The chief author (Libb Thims) was barred from Wikipedia about 2007 for persistently writing whole articles about nonsense topics in his "human thermodynamics", plus defending them from sockpuppet accounts such as "Sadi Carnot" which is against the rules. He then started his own website, but the Wikipedia thermodynamics community would rather eliminate references even to the legitimate pages such as the one you found, in order to reduce the number of Wiki readers finding the nonsense pages. For more details on this controversy, follow the links from User:Libb Thims or User:Sadi Carnot. Dirac66 (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I had indeed noticed that the Hmolpedia website was rather peculiar (though I have to say that some of the points raised there about analogies between thermodynamics and human interactions are fairly mainstream and uncontroversial: for instance, Irving Fisher's analogy between Gibbsian equilibrium and general equilibrium in markets). Like I said to Grandiose, I see nothing objectionable in the specific article about the Gibbs stamp that's currently given as a reference, but it could be taken out without anything being left unreferenced. So feel free to act on your own if you feel that Hmolpedia just shouldn't be used as a source. - Eb.hoop (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is best that I remove it given that the reviewer has questioned it. It is true that this specific article is ok, but the website as a whole has so much nonsense that it is not really a reliable source. Perhaps a balanced assessment is that it contains some truth even about some human interactions, but the management is very uncritical, so that an uninformed reader might have trouble deciding which parts exactly are valid. As you say, the other reference given is sufficient. Dirac66 (talk) 01:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

I see that the article on Gibbs is now officially a GA. My congratulations to the principal author. Dirac66 (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll second that congratulations! I would have wanted to be the reviewer, but I felt that I was too involved with the stamp image issue to be an unbiased judge. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Kind thanks for your comments. Working on the bio. has been a welcome distraction, but I should give it a rest now, at least for the time being. I've just finished adding a bit of material and a couple of images. Eventually I'd like to try to promote this to FA status. All the best, - Eb.hoop (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate links detector

You may find this useful.

importScript('User:Ucucha/duplinks.js'); // [[User:Ucucha/duplinks]]

Add the script to Special:MyPage/common.js and clear the cache after saving. There will be a link "Highlight duplicate links" in the toolbox on the left on every mainspace article. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Re:Metternich Stela

Thanks for going out of your way to help! I know how museums can make photography difficult; I had a similar experience in the British Museum. Because there's no image of the stela at Wikimedia Commons right now, I think you might as well upload what you have, if the stela is recognizable in it.

For some reason the PDF link you gave doesn't seem to work for me, though other good images of the stela are available on the museum's website. The part I want for my immediate purposes (a lead image for ancient Egyptian deities) is the lunette with the sun disk at the top, and the disk is definitely a relief, albeit a shallow one. So I think it's just three-dimensional enough to fall afoul of the rules. Fortunately I can use some other image for the same purpose, just not one that seems quite as fitting. A. Parrot (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

u r too smart for Wiki

Badass. writing on Gibbs and on econ theory. You can do better than the typical self-publishers here. TCO (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I enjoy editing Wikipedia. It's a good outlet for my graphomania. - Eb.hoop (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Austrian Business Cycle

Hello. I saw your recent contribution on talk and I encourage you to participate in editing this article and the Austrian School article. For starters it would be good to expand the criticisms and state them in more detail. Unfortunately, as you will see, the statement of ABCT itself is confused and includes incorrect statements and needs a lot of work. Come join us! SPECIFICO 04:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. Thanks for your knowledgeable comments on Ludwig von Mises. I hope you'll join us in working on his article and the group of articles about his self-appointed intellectual guardians at the Mises Institute, Rothbard, and related topics. SPECIFICO talk 05:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Bank rate

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bank rate, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. greenrd (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

peer review

Hi smart guy. Still think it is a shame on Gibbs. Really I think the thing is already better than featured. Hope I did not hurt you by liking it (I'm a pariah).

In any case, can you please review and fix "Fluorine". If it's too long, just hit a specific section (Fluorochemical Industry could use a person).-TCO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.137.171 (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Phase rule

Hi. Could you look at Talk:Gibbs' phase rule? The question is whether the article title should be Gibbs' phase rule, Gibbs's phase rule, Gibbs phase rule, or just Phase rule. I would welcome your opinion. Dirac66 (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Featured article !

Congratulations to the principal author - I see on the FA nomination page that the Gibbs article has been "promoted". And we only missed Gibbs' 175th birthday by a few days. Dirac66 (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

	The Chemistry Bond Star
	I'd like to congratulate you as well. It's awesome to see such an important article brought to featured status. Your work is greatly appreciated.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Josiah Willard Gibbs to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA you may have helped to write) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,310 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. Bencherlite^Talk 09:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your excellent, long-term efforts on the Josiah Willard Gibbs article. Diligent research and editing. Nickknack00 (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

New JW Gibbs photo

Hi Eb.hoop, I wondered if you could date this photo of JW Gibbs? It looks to be from the same years as the photo you posted from 1855, but this site dates it to c. 1840. Nickknack00 (talk) 01:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

That picture was used in the cover of The Early Work of Willard Gibbs in Applied Mechanics, (New York: Henry Schuman, 1947), but there it says only that it dates from Gibbs's time as a Yale student. Obviously 1840 is too low an estimate, since he was born in 1839 and entered Yale in 1854. That's the best I can do. The document trail on Gibbs's early life is very thin. - Eb.hoop (talk) 07:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2