User talk:Pzavon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello Pzavon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Alhutch 04:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Boston University 2 occupational hygiene 3 External link in Poison 4 Gilbert and Sullivan 5 The new and third article on Legionaires' disease 6 Ergonomics 7 Thanks 8 BU's religious affiiliation

[edit] Boston University

sorry to be slow in responding to your message, but I was at class for a while. I'll take a look right now.--Alhutch 17:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you in this case, and I have reverted to the previous version of the introductory paragraphs. I'll drop a line to this user on their talk page and let them know why there's a problem with their version of the intro. Sort of sound like someone in the BU administration wrote those paragraphs. Keep up the good work, and let me know if there's anything else I can do for you.--Alhutch 17:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been several months now and I (and apparently Pzavon, as well) have stepped away from this debate to allow things to cool for a while. Unfortunately, I still disagree that there is a "Graduate School of Management" at BU, and I believe the facts support this assertion.

Please understand, no one is contending that the graduate programs at SMG are not referred to as belonging to the "Graduate School of Management." I myself have heard people refer to it in this way, and in fact many University systems do the same. For example, the Student Link[1], when looking up classes, requires you to select "GSM" to view classes in the SMG graduate program, just as you say. However, if you look, you will also see EOP (English for International Students), OTP (Officer Training Program, ROTC), PDP (Physical Education Classes), among many others. There can be no valid argument that any of these are actually colleges or schools of their own; they appear in the registration system separately as an organizational demarcation (English for International Students) or because there is no other logical place to put them (ROTC).

Again, to reiterate, no one is contending that the term "Graduate School of Management" is not used or that it does not appear on official documents. However, this usage is merely to distinguish the graduate program from the undergraduate program, and also likely because people think that it adds prestige to have a separate graduate school as opposed to having the undergrad and graduate programs in one school (in my opinion).

Nonetheless, I must once again make my objection known to the "Graduate School of Management" being referred to as a separate school.

I propose the following compromise: The article Boston University Graduate School of Management be reverted to its status as a redirect to Boston University School of Management, and a significant mention of the fact that the graduate programs are often referred to as the "Graduate School of Management" be placed in the introductory paragraph of the SMG article.

-Pjorg 17:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't quite tell who is saying what in the 3 Oct 2006 contributions to this discussion, but the proposed compromise seems reasonable to me. Pzavon 00:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] occupational hygiene

your interest in streamlining text is laudable; however you have removed some important elements from this article:

1. removed a wikilink to noise health effects, where the reader can learn much more detail about some of the occupational risks of exposure to elevated sound levels, which risks are substantial.

2. removed the meaning of indoor air quality, by coining it not a "hazard". indoor air quality consists of all exposure to gaseous chemicals, many of which are toxic and some carcinogenic. see for example radon, benzene vapor, phosgene, etc.

3. removed important detail from the illumination discussion. in particular you have left no reference to the effect of incorrect spectra, which has also been linked to cancer incidence.

i would invite you to address these omissions. one needs to be very careful about removing substantive information from an article. thank you for your attention to this matter Anlace 04:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Many of the detail elements you are focusing on may have some value here, but not, in my opinion, in an introductory overview, which is what the first few paragraphs ought to be. Those detailed items belong in more specific sections, which I've not had the time or energy to try to outline recently.

With regard to "incorrect spectra," I find that an extremely wide, potentially frightening, and, as a result, misleading thing to say all by itself that way. Certain parts of the UV region produce melanoma. But I've been an occupational hygienist for about 28 years now, and I would NEVER be so general and non-specific as to say that "incorrect spectra" in a workplace is a significant workplace hazard because "it has been linked to cancer incidence."

This belongs in a specific discussion of the hazards of electromagnetic radiation, or of the agents that can cause cancer, not in a general explanation of what Occupation Hygiene is. All known hazard categories will never be successfully listed here. The best we can do is explain what OH is and include links to more specific articles. In my opinion, this article needs more details about the methods of OH, less enumerations of what hazards are.

Pzavon 02:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

thank you for your responses...you have alluded to several different issues. lets take them one at a time and see where we find agreement.

• the intro section. yes lets agree its not a place for any detailed discussion of health effects, but surely we at least want to list the main topics that occupational hygiene addresses:

airborne contaminants, sound levels, etc. lets not forget most readers dont know what an occupational hygienist addresses.

• incorrect spectra. let me agree with you that references to cancer may not be appropriate here, as long as we can link to relevant fuller article descriptions of risk.

regards Anlace 03:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External link in Poison

I have responded to your comment here. Were you looking for any other information?
Thanks -- Argon233 ^T C _@ ¶  18:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No. I saw your response and the later follow-up. I've not had time to check out the web site in question myself and so decided to leave your edit without further question.

 Pzavon 02:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gilbert and Sullivan

Progress has been made on many of the G&S-related pages. See what you think. I think we are getting close (not yet, but close) to the point where the page might be nominated as ...what can you get nominated for? Featured article, or something like that? Regards, --Ssilvers 03:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on the G&S talk page. By the way, I have put up a lot of new G&S personalities' bio pages. Click on the links and see if you can add anything. It would be good for more people than just Marc and me to have contributed to them. -- Ssilvers 17:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Sam. I've not been much oriented toward the personalities, so I may have little to contribute to those articles. Also, I have a large project outside Wikiland to complete before I can allow myself to drop deeply into this stuff, so I may not spend much time on this for a few more weeks. Pzavon 01:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Marc and I started a formal Project on G&S. Please add yourself as a participant at WP:G&S.Ssilvers 04:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The new and third article on Legionaires' disease

I am writing to you because, in the past, you have contributed to the article Legionellosis and might therefore might be interested in the following:

Wikipedia has had two existing articles for quite a while named Legionella and Legionellosis. About a month ago, User:Noigel2000 started making changes to both these articles with no prior discussion on the talk pages. When his changes got edited, he became quite perturbed. After quite a bit of discourse, (during which his need to use proper Wiki syntax and guidelines was pointed out to him), he became even more perturbed. He made a number of derogatory remarks about other editors and about Wikipedia, and kept insisting that his Internet website (devoted to Legionnaires' disease) was the best source of information and better than anything in Wikipedia.

Finally, Noigel got tired of having his edits to the two existing articles corrected and of being admonished for some of his remarks. So he wrote a third, completely new article entitled Legionnaires' disease. It is composed entirely of material taken directly from the many pages on his Internet web site. He made absolutely no attempt to "Wikify" the article. There are no references, no external links (with one exception, a link to his web site), no embedded Wiki links, poor organization, no use of Wiki section headings, etc. In my opinion, he is using Wikipedia as a billboard for his web site (and I admit that I am biased, because I do not like his attitude).

Here are two of the pages on his website: [2] and [3]

Here is a direct copy of his self-introduction from his User talk:Noigel2000 page: "Who am I or what am I. Some call me a Legioneela Advocate, Others a Legionella Nut or Legionella Fan some stronger than that."

Do you think that this third article by Noigel is really needed? Please let me know what you think. - mbeychok 17:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ergonomics

Thanks for pointing out my removing the external links, claiming they're linkspam. My mistake. I should have written "per WP:EL & WP:NOT" and made a note on the talk page. I'll rectify. Basically, we're not going to list each and every ergonomics-related research group [4]. If there are exceptional ones, they should probably discussed first on the talk page. --Ronz 04:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your understanding, for inserting a citation needed tag versus removing a valid article passage outright. The page it is hyperlinked to needs to be updated and has been tagged so for a long time, so hopefully this will produce results. I don't often look at the page sans violation concern... Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BU's religious affiiliation

On 6 February 2007 you removed categories related to BU's Methodist affilliation from the main Boston University article because, as you said "BU no longer maintains any religious affilliation." BU as a University has not had a Methodist affiliation for many years. In fact, from the 1869 Charter I believe no part of the University other than Theology had a formal religious affiliation. I believe the School of Theology has maintained its affiliation from the beginning, thus making those category links appropriate. Pzavon 03:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're correct about STH having an affiliation, but the template and categories suggest that the school as a whole is affiliated, which it is not. If there is a separate article for STH then I think the category would belong there. Pjorg 15:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)