User talk:James F. Perry

Welcome

Tasks: start a new article • add basic, wanted or requested articles • add definitions • add metadata • edit new pages

Welcome to the Citizendium! We hope you will contribute boldly and well. Here are pointers for a quick start, and see Getting Started for other helpful "startup" links, our help system and CZ:Home for the top menu of community pages. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forum is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any user or the editors for help, too. Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and have fun!

Sarah Tuttle 11:20, 2 January 2007 (CST)

imports from WP

There currently is no "imported from WP template". We're trying to add a checkbox at the bottom of the editing window or something to add or remove that notice. In the meantime, if you do import them, just put a sentence at the bottom, like this: This page is based off of one of the same topic at the English Wikipedia. Also, if you can take only your contributions out of an article, please do so. That way, the article is all-CZ, instead of a mix of WP and CZ content. But if it's not feasible, don't worry about it. --ZachPruckowski 13:57, 25 January 2007 (CST)

Joan of Arc's visions

Hi, James F. Perry -- I'm just posting a note here to see why you feel that Joan of Arc's visions ought to be removed from the main article. I'm puzzled by the change, but open to hearing why you thought it a good idea. Regards,

Russell Potter 20:09, 7 January 2007 (CST)

Not a problem. Glad to help out. Best,--Jason Sanford 08:35, 8 January 2007 (CST)

Joan of Arc

Hi James, thanks for your notes on my talk page.

The things you're doing make sense to me on one level -- you are adding and expanding content on some very important issues relating to Joan of Arc. My only question is why remove them from the main biographical entry? I could imagine a long article on, say, medieval women mystics, with a subsection on Visions which might include some of the things you've been working on, and cross-referencing this to the main entry. But if you take the section on Visions out of the main entry altogether, you render the main entry far less valuable, I fear. Some summary, or shortened version, should remain in any case; if there is to be a separate article on Joan's visions, it should be clearly cross-referenced with the main entry.

Perhaps this question should be talked about in either the History or Religion discussion forums? It might well be a very good article to breathe some life into those forums with!

cheers,

Russell Potter 13:11, 9 January 2007 (CST)

Copyright/Free Use for Pictures

Could you kindly correct my mistake and put whatever language should be there about the pictures on the image bank- thanks, Nancy Nancy Sculerati MD 17:20, 30 January 2007 (CST)

question

hello, just wondering here: why isnt the IAA mentioned in the organisations, or the ESA/NASA and all other international organisations - who are contributing to astronomical research. For popularity you might even consider adding a hubble and webb section about observations of the universe. I do think your section is going ahead very very well, thanks for your contributions and enthusiasm. Robert Tito 12:45, 31 January 2007 (CST)

Mr. Perry, it might be useful to get in touch with Todd Trimble. He has an interest in space exploration, you are in the other regime: together it might be very interesting. regards, and keep up the good work. Robert Tito 16:14, 31 January 2007 (CST)

Latin

Mr. Perry,

Indeed not many are able to read Latin, you must have been pleased by the volume, though many, like for instance Principeae, have a very archaic way to tell and show things. Even the math seems strange, but once accustomed to it it is fun to read. Robert Tito 16:04, 2 February 2007 (CST)

Tycho

James, for some reason I can only see your edits on my user talk page if I look at the history. I am not familiar with his death, and will try to read about it. Tell me more about the cats, please. NancyNancy Sculerati MD 15:25, 6 February 2007 (CST)

WP templates

Hi James, I notice in your edit summaries that you say you are adding WP templates. This is not necessary, as long as you check the "Content is from Wikipedia?" checkbox. If this is not working yet, it will be soon. Once we've confirmed that it is working, we will be removing all the WP templates. So, do what you gotta do, but just know that others will be removing the templates probably pretty soon. --Larry Sanger 12:57, 13 February 2007 (CST)

Fermentation & Chorleywood Bread Process articles

Why are these marked for a deletion request?
I could see no explanation, but that may be
because I don't know my way around here, yet.

http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki/Chorleywood_Bread_Process

http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki/Fermentation_(food)--Perry Spiller 16:06, 18 February 2007 (CST)

deleting stubs

Hi James,

I've been waiting for a good excuse to write you -- because I have an old friend named James Perry who's a philosophy professor at a community college in Florida, so whenever I see your name on CZ I smile -- and now I have it. Thanks for the note you put on my talk page about why you're deleting the stubs I'm creating, and now that I know that's not the right way to solve my problem, I hope you'll be kind enough to tell me what I should be doing instead. The problem is that I keep creating articles that have legitimate links to articles that don't exist yet. When I didn't create stubs for those new articles immediately, people came along and removed all the links to them, and I'm for sure not going to go back later and put links in old articles to all the new ones that have been created since, and I doubt anyone else will. So I started creating stubs so they'd be on my contributions list for me to go back and flesh them out later, but now people are deleting those stubs. I don't understand the reasoning (because it seems to me that a short but accurate article is better than none at all, especially when I give it an external link to someplace really helpful), but I'll go along with whatever CZ policy is. So please tell me whether I should (1) just not put in links to anything that doesn't exist yet, (2) create stubs but put something on their talk page to keep them from being deleted, or (3) something else. Again, thanks muchly for telling me. -- k kay shearin 22:52, 19 February 2007 (CST)

" . . . are you telling me that people actually go in and remove the square brackets which create links?"

Yes, and it was really driving me nuts, because sometimes they did it when I had the new linked-to article written in my word-processor, during the time it took me to cut it there and click on the link I had just created to paste it in.

"Oh, and I'm working on the Trial of Joan of Arc page. It is currently in the History Workgroup. I was thinking of moving it to the Law Workgroup where it would go with other famous Trials (Socrates, Scopes, Nuremburg, etc). What do you think?"

I love the idea, because I was planning on marking articles about famous legal cases as Law Workgroup anyhow, but I may be prejudiced. Can an article be in more than one workgroup, as I've assumed it could? If so, why don't you put it in both? If not, why don't you give it to Law, for the very reason you gave? -- k kay shearin 23:29, 19 February 2007 (CST)

Good thinking, but no cigar: Having been mugged by the likes of "Rob Levin" (and worse ones) on WP years ago, I wasn't bothered by him, and that's why I just left him the message I did and waited for him to be taken care of, which he promptly was. No, most of the stubs it happened in have now been deleted, so there's no history for me to point you to, but if you look at the history of West Memphis Three (can you tell that's my magnum opus so far? I've been stranded in a rented room in WM for more than a year now on my way to somewhere else, and this is therapy), beginning with "Gareth Leng" 's 1st edit on 16 February, you'll get the idea. -- k kay shearin 15:10, 20 February 2007 (CST)

famous trials

I've been thinking about your idea about articles on famous trials and your professed lack of legal expertise, and I'd be willing to supply the latter if you'd take the lead on the former, at least until some other folks get on board. I don't have an appropriate point of view to paint the big picture this general-purpose encyclopedia needs. Normal people, for example, don't care that I think the West Memphis 3 and O. J. Simpson trials are the two sides of one coin, or that I think they're in one basket with the Salem Witch trials while Joan of Arc and Scopes and Socrates are in another and the trials of wives and ministers of kings are in another. I also wonder if, with so many philosophers among us, we might get a workgroup of experts to provide the sociological/psychological/political insight to add to the legal analyses the Law Workgroup would provide, because that's the aspect of the trials that gets people so worked up about them, and I'd like to see that laid out in the articles. -- k kay shearin 14:43, 21 February 2007 (CST)

As I said before, I'm too close to the topic to have a good perspective, so I'll defer to your list of what articles about trials are 'high priority' for the Law Workgroup (and, yes, I am a CZ editor, and I suppose I qualify as such in law, because my only doctorate is in that subject, altho I have degrees in several other fields, but not in the ones I'm most interested in writing about, unfortunately), but I can't help exhibiting my lawyerness/attorneyhood by asking if you don't think it would be a good idea to subdivide the (sub)topic into civil trials and criminal trials, because different bodies of law apply to them, and they're based on totally different ideas: Civil law and, therefore, civil trials are about disputes between individual citizens within the society, but criminal law and trials are about disputes between an individual and society as a whole, which is why they can be so outrageously unjust. -- k kay shearin 00:17, 22 February 2007 (CST)

No, I myself don't consider those two trials a priority, but then I've never cared about spectator sports (or pornography, either -- I figure you either play or don't play, but you don't pay to watch someone else play) anway, so you can't judge by me. And I confess to being biased toward U.S. law, because that's all I've practiced, because this is where I've been, but it's not as if there are trials taking place anywhere else (since 1776) that affect U.S. law, and we certainly consider the old cases from Europe important. But here are some U.S. Supreme Court cases I'd give priority to:

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

New York Times v. U.S., 403 U.S. 713 (1971)

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)

U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)

And what about Jack the Ripper makes him a legal subject at all, much less a priority one? Since we don't even know who he was, so there was never any legal proceeding involving him, why should the Law Workgroup care about him? There's certainly a place in this encyclopedia for the great unsolved crimes (who killed the princes in the Tower?) in history, but I respectfully suggest that it doesn't take a lawyer to approve any article about it, and isn't that the test of what should be in the Law Workgroup? -- k kay shearin 22:19, 22 February 2007 (CST)