Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:59, 2 July 2006

Hello Paul, welcome to Misplaced Pages!

There are lots of resources around to help guide you. be sure to check out:

• Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions
• Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style

Also check out

• wikipedia:image use policy before uploading any images

If you need any help try

• Misplaced Pages:Help
• Village pump
• My talk page User_talk:Jimfbleak.

Don't be afraid of making the odd mistake, there are any number of others eagerly waiting for a chance to correct it!

Would you please advise the full details as to the photo you uploaded into David Pearce. Thank you. ChuckM 02:42 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Ignore the above question, it's just someone being silly. Feel free to ask me if you want a fuller explanation. Evercat 02:47 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

While ChuckM is just being silly, it is true that we request that people add a little bit of info to the relevant image description page regarding source, etc. I'd certainly appreciate it if you would do so. Thanks :) Martin 18:01 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I have updated the information, as requested.

Re: Unger - Seriously? :-) If he's not a utilitarian then what is he? His position, both on self-sacrifice, and on doing harm to promote good, seems precisely to be utilitarianism... Evercat 03:11, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Seriously. :-| See the Amazon.com review I wrote, where I quote some relevant passages by Unger. In that article he says that his views differ with utilitarian ones in two respects. First, in that unlike utilitarianism, he thinks one's duties towards one's relatives differ from one's duties towards foreigners. Second, in that unlike utilitarianism, he does not think it would be right to demand a serious violation of someone's rights, even if that made the net outcome better. I don't have the reference, so my depiction of his views might be inaccurate, but I think those were basically his points.

Hi, could you have a quick look at Talk:Felicific calculus. Thanks. - snoyes 02:04, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi, please look at Talk:Jorge Luis Borges. I'm trying to avoid an edit war with you. -- Jmabel 23:52, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Image copyright tag missing

Hello, we're working hard to add image copyright tags to every image so that the copyright status is not ambiguous. I'd appreciate it if you could add the appropriate copyright tag to these images:

• Image:UniversityofOxford2.jpg

Jeff 08:59, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

Iamblichus

Hi, I've done a lot of work on the Iamblichus (philosopher) article you started and am fishing for a little peer review. If you are interested, look it over and any comment would be appreciated. Otherwise, thanks --DanielCD 15:32, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Unverified images

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

• Image:IgnacyJanPaderewski.jpg

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. ] 21:25, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

By all means, follow your intuition and tag accordingly. ] 03:36, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Likewise, please take a look at these and tag appropriately. Thanks, Kbh3rd 01:00, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Image:KarlJaspers.jpg
• Image:KarlMarx3.jpg

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Misplaced Pages's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to ] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to ] all my contributions to any ], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Image:Makingpottery.jpg

seems to be working fine for me. Are you sure it wasn't a temporary problem? Or maybe just at your end?

Seemingly a temporary problem. Sorry. Sir Paul 14:43, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Regional notice board

You are wellcome to join the Argentine regional notice board. -Mariano 17:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Project!

I am kindly inviting you to join our new project page!

--Sebastian Kessel 17:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Image source/licensing for Image:Bunge.jpg

This message notification has been automatically sent by NotificationBot managed and run by AllyUnion. Please leave comments regarding bot operations at AllyUnion's talk page. Please direct all comments regarding licensing information at Misplaced Pages talk:Images for deletion. --NotificationBot 13:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Sir Paul, always nice to hear from someone who seems to agree with you completely! ;) At least, on one little topic... Yeah, MichaelSirks has done a good job of doggedly hanging in there, and dodging the three-revert rule, all to support that stupid DCSD timeline and HAN quote. The Lomborg article is a mess... One gambit that might shake things up a bit is to start a HAN article. I was gonna do that a while back, but...didn't have time. Too hard. But if it got going, MS might have to divide his energies between two fronts... Wear him down. I dunno, it's all pretty odd and silly, but that's the way of Misplaced Pages. You gotta love it... Later on. --Tsavage 01:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Dershowitz

The number of plagarized citations has changed for the third time. Can you please cite the source? Lotsofissues 06:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:JoseOrtegayGasset.jpg

Looks like someone is about to delete Image:JoseOrtegayGasset.jpg for lack of copyright info. You uploaded it, so I figure there is a fair chance you'll be able to remedy this. -- Jmabel | Talk 10:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

USA to Argentina

¡Saludos, compañero de Misplaced Pages! I'm coming to Argentina soon and wanted to see if any of my fellow Wikipedians were interested in meeting up, etc...I'm flying into BsAs on Jan. 25th and I don't know many people there, so if you'd be into talking/getting together, let me know. (BTW, cool user name, wish I thought of it myself.) Feel free to leave a message on my user page...seeya around - Paul 22:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Too bad you're not in BsAs...although Toronto is a pretty awesome place. Ciao Paul 01:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Is "extraordinarily uninhibited" POV?

Hi. You removed a link from the article on Brian Leiter which I had labelled as a "sample of Leiter's 'no bullshit' blogging featuring extraordinarily uninhibited attacks on Glenn Reynolds and Michelle Malkin" with the comment "removing POV link". I was aware when I wrote that label that "extraordinary" was likely to be controversial, but thought that "extraordinarly uninhibited" was more accurate and informative than "uninhibited", particularly for that particular posting. Clearly you disagree. I'm still trying to get a feel for the boundaries here, so I wonder if you would have accepted just "uninhibited"? Is English-style ironic understatement like that appropriate? I'd value your response.

Anyway, I have reinstated the link with quotes from it in place of words about it. Hope you approve. Chris Chittleborough 03:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --TJive 21:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)