Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:20, 2 August 2009

Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Follow the Misplaced Pages:Simplified Ruleset
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 20:53, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Doping (semiconductor)

Good job on the doping article! Many of the details of diffusion rates etc. had escaped me, as I've only had the most basic education in this area.

If you would care to expand the III-V section of the article, I think that could use some attention as well.

--Joel 22:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Ipswich

I've done something with Ipswich re that image, it's better, but still looks odd, but that's due to the lack of text in the surrounding paragraphs: so feel free to edit the Ipswich article yourself. Alf 12:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

OSS

Hi Phil, I added OSI back to "see also" under Amdocs. Objective Systems Integrators is similar to Amdocs since we are an OSS developer. Our OSS framework is NETeXPERT. We've been around for 2 decades. Would it be better to create a new header with a list of OSS vendors? Thanks, Andrew Lee.

I deleted your addition because it looks very much like you'd added a link to a company with which you're associated. This would seem to breach http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest. The link it points to is a page where you appear to be the major contributor. At the time I deleted the link, your company's wiki page was also marked for deletion as non-notable, which would back up the assertion that the link should not have been there. It seems to me that you are advertising your own company, which would be a breach of Wiki guidelines.--Phil Holmes (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

2009 Formula One season

Your information has been removed again because it is uncited. It is not my responsibility to confirm if references exist for statements you added without citations, twice. If you wish to add information to any article about a future event (see WP:CRYSTAL), please do not be lazy and take the time to properly cite it. Since you seem ot be reading the new regulations, you should be more than able to cite this statement. The359 (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

A major rule change for a future season of a motorsport is inherently "debatable" since it is ignorant to assume that everyone is aware of all technical regulations and their changes from season to season. A citation is especially necessary for a future sport as, "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable" (WP:CRYSTAL) Therefore, verify that these are in fact changes that have taken place by citing your source. A talk page message telling another user to "look them up in the regulations" is not verification.

Also, "which appear to be front wings" appears to be a bit of OR. Either these supposed rule changes discuss front wings or they don't. What they may appear to be specifically discussing doesn't necessarily belong. The359 (talk) 07:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Douglas Robert Hadow

Hi Phil. Thanks for the amendment. Would it be possible for you to take a pic or scan of that family tree and post it online somewhere (Commons?) so that the change can be verified? Re. the family tree, does it call our man Douglas Robert Hadow or Robert Douglas Hadow? I've seen both versions given. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've uploaded an excerpt of the tree showing the relevant information at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/HadowTree.png. Please let me know if you need more information.

I actually started looking at the Hadow family tree because one of my relatives was a butler to Henry Hadow, and it's become a bit of an obsession tracking them all down. You don't happen to know the name of the great grandfather of Pen Hadow (Rupert Nigel Pendrill Hadow) by any chance? --Phil Holmes (talk) 14:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. I've put a ref to the family tree in the Douglas Hadow article. Re Pen's distant relation, sorry I haven't a clue, but you might try asking this chap who is a mine of such information. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I found out a couple of hours after asking. It's Arthur de Salis Hadow, a brother of Douglas Robert. --Phil Holmes (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah good. A possible connection with Bondo or Soglio? Ericoides (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Took me a while to find it, but no. I reckon it's a homage to a colleague at P&O. See http://www.poships.co.uk/PO%20Chairmen.html --Phil Holmes (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No relationship to the Soglio Salises then? Ericoides (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe so --Phil Holmes (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll/Autoformatting_responses

Regarding your comment in opposition to date autoformatting, I'd like to point out that autoformatting and autolinking are two different issues. It's currently possible to autoformat dates without having them be linked, and there are further improvements that have been proposed that would allow both of those options to be specified as individual, independent preference settings, and to use the existing date syntax to enable those features. --Sapphic (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In my oppose, I said that it's used as a justification for excessive linking, and I have seen that and therefore believe it to be true. --Phil Holmes (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm trying to let you know that the date linking and date autoformatting can be disentangled from each other. It's now possible to have dates autoformat without having them be linked. There are further plans to fix a lot more of the problems with the current autoformatting system, pending the outcome of the poll. If you're opposed to autoformatting in general (and not just the older version that'd been in place up until a month or so ago, or whenever User:Werdna committed his patch) then could you clarify your reasons on the poll page, so nobody will question the results? If you're only opposed to having dates be linked, then would you please consider the specific question of autoformatting, independently of that, and then clarify and/or change your position on the poll page? Or just ignore this request entirely, it's up to you; I won't bug you about it anymore. --Sapphic (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've deleted my oppose to autoformatting and moved it to a comment. --Phil Holmes (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Phil, well I'm here to say that while date autoformatting can be disentangled from linking, the proposed system they've got there is untested and still cannot display date ranges (January 3–7, 1990). There is significant doubt that the system can be made to do this, and since after six years the old blue system couldn't be made to do it, I have no confidence in the claims of a few editors that the system will be made to work properly. Date ranges, non-breaking spaces, and other technical issues are set to plague any new system, especially one that is not demonstrated and has no proper specs. That is why we advised taking a cautious, even conservative approach. I have no doubt that your decision to oppose was based on your reading of the Statement against, which outline other issues, too, such as the query as to what the problem is in the first place.

Cheers. Tony (talk) 05:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure if you saw my comment, but I wrote "I'd don't mind either way whether dates have autoformatting options providing it doesn't rely on date linking". Grammar notwithstanding, anyone reading that in order to determine the result of the poll should be clear on my view? --Phil Holmes (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

CheapChop

Thanks for the link about sound card volt meters. Just what I was after! PeterGrecian (talk) 09:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:PunchOnTheLambethConf1867.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:PunchOnTheLambethConf1867.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Misplaced Pages, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:AtosOrigin.gif)

Thanks for uploading File:AtosOrigin.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

File:PlaceSettingCharger.jpg missing description details

Commons tagging

Identification of images for commons Is Useful editing :) I expect an apology. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Either moving them yourself or doing the editing is useful. Adding thousands of tags is not. No apology forthcoming. Try doing some editing rather than adding useless tags. --Phil Holmes (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

So tags for moves to Commons are pointless? Well, Thanks for your opinion. I'd still like an apology for the implication that it's not 'useful' editing though. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Phil, I'd like to point out that tagging is not useless. Sfan00 may wish to have other editors move images that he is less sure of (some images have unsure licenses and he may wish to obtain the opinion of someone else). We can't all be copyright gurus, and therefore, it is not a pointless task. Anything editing on this project (for the most part) is beneficial. _peace ☮ 22:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No Apologies Needed

I, too, have been annoyed by the compulsion of certain editors to move every image to Wikimedia. While they are well meaning (and I personally like SFan00), I don't think they appreciate the problems that this migration to Wikimedia causes, such as a loss of your Watch rights, and the looser regulation of spurious deletion that goes on outside of Misplaced Pages. All of this is done under the excuse that this will make images available to all Wikimedia projects, however I have found that these images are never used in anything other than Misplaced Pages, making their efforts pointless. I recommend tagging any important images with {{Keeplocal}}, so there is at least a copy kept in WP. It looks like this:

The uploader or another editor requests that a local copy of this file be kept. This image or media file may be available on the Wikimedia Commons as User talk:Phil Holmes, where categories and captions may be viewed. While the license of this file may be compliant with the Wikimedia Commons, an editor has requested that the local copy be kept too. This file does not meet CSD F8 and should not be tagged as a Commons duplicate. If you desire to nominate it for deletion, notify the tagging editor.

You don't owe anyone an apology. Bill Whittaker (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as they obey GFDL licencing. However, you're supposed to keep the original with GFDL. So I wonder if there's not a problem with moving them over? --CyclePat (talk) 03:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Garneau

Hey Phil, It's Pat Roy. thanks for the contributions at Garneau... http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Garneau_Logo.png http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=File:Garneau_Logo.png&oldid=188907733 --CyclePat (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Pat, and for your contributions above. In truth, the conversion to jpg is the easy bit - it seems that all the other tagging stuff is what causes the problems. I may seem a little ratty above, but I've suffered from other authors who think that adding "citation needed" tags all over a page is somehow a positive contribution, and it continues to seem to me that blindly adding tags to pages reqesting someone else do something could be time better spent. Just my 2p. --Phil Holmes (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Phil, Speaking of "citation needed". To conform with GFDL licencing, I think, specially if you want it done properly, you're going to have to upload the picture overtop of the other one. However, I don't know if that's even possible, if you change from .png to .jpg. Also, I remember reading about which format to take and I clearly remember at the time Misplaced Pages saying something along the line of .jpg for photos and .png for documents or scans. This is a scan. But meuh. Anyways, well wait and see what happens regarding the speedy delete of the original photo. If they agree that it should be deleted, I will move that we, re-instate the .png. (I hope there's no offence taken) Licencing... referencing... etc... as discussed in the licencing section of the photos themselves. Anyways, it's all about keeping in touch with your Spirituality and keeping a "clean view" on things. If something bothers you, then perhaps there's something you need to explore and talk about so it brings you peace. God bless. p.s.: I imagine you looked at my user profile. No matter the case... "hard fact are hard to find. Usually what we have are POVs" (see the rest of this saying on my profile) Which essentially means, in general, we have a lot of "citations needed" (pun intented) --CyclePat (talk) 05:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

CanOfWorms (talk · contribs)

CanOfWorms isn't interested in discussing the issue, numerous editors have contacted him regarding his addition of fact tags about various problems and have invariably been met with hostility. The tags are generally fair, although he does make mistakes, so I think in general it's best to leave him alone. Reinstating your question on his talk page will only serve to piss him off, so it's best just to let the issue go. You're right though, sometimes he doesn't bother looking for the reference, or even to the end of the sentence. Nev1 (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)