Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:14, 28 January 2005

Archive

Feel free to leave me messages here. Note that I may reply in this talk page or in your own, unless you specifically ask me to reply in either place (or, better yet, not reply at all). I will try to archive everything written here that isn't overly blasphemous, but if it's important, make sure you keep a copy as well. -- Itai 19:48, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Man pages

from the pump

Two questions: (1) under what license are Unix man pages released? (I guess that those used by GNU Linux, use, well, GFDL, but want to ascertain this.) (2) Is there a policy regarding inclusion of whole or part of man pages on Misplaced Pages? In the rlogin entry, for instance, it is awfully tempting to include sections of the man page, but I do not know whether there's a relevant policy. -- Itai 11:58, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think linux manpages are probably GPL, as they're distributed in source and binary packages that are GPL. My understanding is that, for our purposes, GPL and GFDL are sufficiently compatible. I think including chunks of a man page wholesale is generally a bad idea, as documentation really belongs either on openbooks (hmm, I think that's what it's called) or wikibooks. Man pages aren't very encylopedic anyway, as they rarely explain what a given command really does, why you would want to use it, who wrote it, how it does what it does, and other programs you might use that do the same (or similar) tasks. rlogin is (as of right now) perfectly encyclopedic (if rather too short), and I think an exlink to some LDP mirror for the man contents is probably the best idea. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:18, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

While I don't think that command-line parameters from the man page would be appropriate in an encyclopedia article, the man pages do provide some encyclopedic content, such as "related topics", and POSIX standards information. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:25, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

I did as Finlay suggested regarding adding a link (thanks for the GPL clarification, by the way). There does not appear to be any additional encyclopedic content in the man page that would not be better served simply by consulting the man page, which it is safe to assume all those who need use rlogin can locate on their own. I agree that the essence of the program - what it does - is far more useful than command-line parameters to the lay reader. -- Itai 21:45, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is a bad assumption to make. First of all, hardly all Linux software is under the GPL (if you take "Linux" to mean "Linux distribution" as is common). Even if you restrict yourself to e.g. GNU utilities, the man page licenses differ from case to case, and may be different from the software. For example, the man page for gzip is under the license:

Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this manual provided the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all copies.

Permission is granted to process this file through troff and print the results, provided the printed document carries copying permission notice identical to this one except for the removal of this paragraph (this paragraph not being relevant to the printed manual).

Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of this manual under the conditions for verbatim copying, provided that the entire resulting derived work is distributed under the terms of a permission notice identical to this one.

Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations of this manual into another language, under the above conditions for modified versions, except that this permission notice may be stated in a translation approved by the Foundation.

(Manuals for a lot of old FSF software use a similar license. Dunno if this is GFDL compatible.) In general, you have to look on a case-by-case basis for a license statement in the man page (ideally) or a license statement that came with the software. And the man page may not come with the software — many FSF programs don't even come with a man page, and use TeXinfo instead, so distros like Debian write or generate their own man pages. —Steven G. Johnson 05:59, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Urgh. Well, so much for Man pages, except, as you say, on a case-by-case basis. I really am disappointed with the FSF on that one. -- Itai 23:40, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Re:Ketuvim tempalate/s etc

Hi Itai, congratulations on the new Tanakh template boxes. I have picked up a few problems:

• You have left out Song of Songs ("aka Song of Solomon) in the Ketuvim template. It should be the fourth item after Book of Job.
• When I clicked on the "Edit this box" at the bottom of the Ketuvim template (to try to add Song of Songs myself), the information that comes up in the box is from the Neviim template section/s, so that is a big problem.

By the way, where does one see the list of templates on Misplaced Pages? Best wishes again. IZAK 07:10, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Re; Hebrew language vs. "Canaanite languages"

Hi, please see:

Request for assistance in a conflict between users regarding Canaanite and Hebrew linguistics articles

Your interest and input would be appreciated. Thank you. IZAK 09:26, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Update: The above discussion was moved to Talk:Hebrew languages. Your input would be appreciated. Thank you. IZAK 06:51, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Alas, not only is this not an area in which I'm qualified to make judgment, but I'm also off for one week as of today. When I got back I'll be sure to check if this issue is not yet resolved, and do my best to assist if necessary. -- Itai 09:32, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

re: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Judaism

Hi Itai, please have a look at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Judaism and perhaps you could join and contribute to it. (This is NOT related to the above issue). Thanks. IZAK 23:29, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Hebrew languages

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Hebrew languages. Please join Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Hebrew languages Your input will be crucial.

Schiessbefehl.

You'd asked for this one. It's been translated. -- Jmabel 06:50, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Itai 14:55, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vote

See Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Occupation of Palestine

Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor

• Article: de:Friedrich II. (HRR)
• Corresponding English-language article: Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor
• Worth doing because: Material to incorporate into English-language article
• Originally Requested by: Itai 02:34, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
• Status: Complete. -- Jmabel 07:03, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Other notes: Not urgent, as English article is pretty comprehensive. (note put here by original poster)
  • This is proving to be a bit of a monster. I started on this 18 Sept & I've brought in all of the material that corresponds to the Life section; there is a lot more beyond that. The slant was very different from the English, and there were some outright contradictions, so it's been a tricky merge. Review would be very welcome. -- Jmabel 23:13, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Done. Article could possibly use some cleanup (redundancies, links, specific citations for specific facts rather than just an annotated bibliography). -- Jmabel 07:03, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Vote: Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis

See Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis. Thank you. IZAK 09:29, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Need for support

See Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/IZAK. Thank you. IZAK 02:59, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Frohnau translation done

• de:Berlin-Frohnau
• Corresponding English-language article: Frohnau
• Worth doing because: Material to incorporate into English-language article
• Originally Requested by: Itai 16:01, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Status: Mpolo 19:27, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
• Other notes: Article currently machine-translated (by Google, I think), and thus highly amusing. A proper translation might be a better idea, however. -- Itai 16:01, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I didn't transfer the map over from the German. If you want it, go right ahead... Mpolo 19:27, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Sam Spade

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Sam Spade

Vote "NO". Opposed to SamSpade's unfriendly views in the Jew article. IZAK 08:49, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Tips of the day

Actually I don't have a list, I just try to remember and add a new one periodically so they don't get too stale. I'll try and work something up on Magic Button, although I wonder how helpful that is for the general audience if it doesn't work on IE. But any other ideas are welcome too. --Michael Snow 00:02, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"(Israel) in contravention of the Partition plan, began killing and ethnically cleansing Palestinian Arab population. Palestine's five neighbour states then.."

Please see History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict#The war for Palestine where User:HistoryBuffer insists on inserting: that Israel "in contravention of the Partition plan, began killing and ethnically cleansing Palestinian Arab population. Palestine's five neighbour states then attacked Israel."...When no-one but he says this, and refuses to accept anything else. He also insists on editing-away lots of NPOV's that don't suit him, take a look at please. IZAK 08:34, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

RFC

Let me inform you that you are far out of line to request an RFC on me. At best, this is a content dispute. I have violated no policies through this. Your RFC complaint cannot be certified by a second person, because noone else is involved. Listing that improper RFC is the same as a direct personal attack, and for right now I will ask you to remove it. -- Netoholic @ 16:41, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

Belarus adjective

Thanks, that list should be useful. (That was a quick reply!) — Mateo SA | talk 17:30, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Vaticinium ex eventu done

• Article: de:Vaticinium ex eventu
• Corresponding English-language article: Vaticinium ex eventu
• Worth doing because: No corresponding English article
• Originally Requested by: Itai 19:29, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Status: Done Mpolo 09:55, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Other notes: I added the bit on the Sibylline oracles. I linked it in prophet and put it in the categories for prophets and religion

Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion

See these six categories up for "votes of deletion":

Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Palestinian_terrorists and Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Palestinian_terrorist_organizations and Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Middle_East_terrorists and Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Terrorist_organizations and Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Islamic_terrorist_organizations and this one too: Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Jewish_terrorist_organizations

IZAK 10:10, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Opinion for IZAK

Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence. Thank you. IZAK 07:03, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Kings of Persia

Hi, I was wondering why you created the category "Kings of Persia" rather than the more commonly used "Shahs of Persia". The rule is not to translate everything into English, but to used what is most commonly used in English, which is Shah. john k 21:10, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Apparently I did. Anyway, I don't know enough on the subject to know whether Shah is also applicable to the kings of old, but if this is the case, I have not the slightest objection to having the category renamed. (I'll even help doing it manually if a bot run cannot be arranged.) -- Itai 21:17, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, Shah is used for all the rulers from the Safavid Dynasty on, I'd say. john k 21:25, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This has come to that point when we are both too lazy to file a request for the category to be moved, and tension is mounting. However, I doubt not that I shall prevail, being far lazier. Just wait and see. (For my part, I'll just wait.) -- Itai 00:44, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fine, I gave up first. A request has been submitted to WP:CFD. Of course, as this requires a bot, having the category replaced could take quite some time. -- Itai 22:44, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Bohemian monarchs

Hi! When creating this category, did you notice that there is already Category:Czech monarchs? I don't quite see the reason for the new one and have set a merge tag. Martg76 21:31, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest that "Bohemian Monarchs" is the more appropriate category, although I agree they should be merged. john k 21:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe Category:Bohemian monarchs could be a subcategory of Category:Czech monarchs, which would also include Samo and the rulers of Great Moravia (none of whom appears to have a page yet. Martg76 22:07, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I didn't pay much heed to Category:Czech monarchs (mostly because a monarch is hardly a monarch unless he has a million titles), however, going over it right now, I agree that there's a duplicity. I agree with john that Bohemian is probably more correct (being the historical entity), and with you that it should be subcategorized. No objections raised. (By the way, the reason I created this category is not because I found this particular subject to be of interest, but because I've taken a fancy to adding Category:Dukes of Bohemia - I'm a busy categorizer ant - and figured we could do with a category to contain everybody else listed in List of rulers of Bohemia.) -- Itai 00:42, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I created a subcategory Category:Kings of Bohemia. Now they should be nicely categorized as Dukes and Kings respectively. Just in case you are going to take a look at List of rulers of Austria, it's not always clear which ones are Dukes and which ones are Archdukes. Martg76 01:52, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There were no Archdukes of Bohemia, or were you saying something else. Should Maria Theresa go under "Kings of Bohemia" then? I believe that in Bohemia (unlike Hungary) she was actually Queen, rather than King, although I'm not sure on that. john k 04:39, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Archdukes of Bohemia? What is that supposed to mean??? I was suggesting to User:Itai to be careful if he also wants to subcategorize Category:Rulers of Austria according to the title (Margrave/Duke/Archduke), as he began to do with Category:Dukes of Bohemia, which I completed by adding Category:Kings of Bohemia. I do not think it would make any sense to create a separate "Queens of Bohemia" category for Maria Theresia alone. The logical consequence is to categorize her with the Kings. Category:Bohemian monarchs including Kings (and Maria Theresia) only, but not the Dukes makes no sense, although a gender-neutral category of course has its appeals. Martg76 05:18, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course, if you think that Category:Bohemian monarchs should take the place of Category:Czech monarchs, this is fine with me. Martg76 05:21, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what you were saying with archdukes, sorry. I don't think I disagree with anything you are saying. In terms of Czech monarchs, since it's exactly the same thing, I don't see any reason to preserve both. I think I would agree with keeping the Dukes in the category - it's irritating we don't have a gender-neutral word that includes kings and excludes dukes...ah well. john k 06:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Seeing as Martg76 does not object to using Category:Bohemian monarchs, I've filed a motion for the deletion of Category:Czech monarchs (redirects don't work yet). Other than that, it seems everything is properly categorized. -- Itai 22:32, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Austrian and Czech monarchs

Hi Itai,

thanks for your message at my page -- I stopped reading yours, but I will do so now again. I wasn't aware that there is a separate categories for deletion process and page.

• I think that historically, Category:Czech monarchs is not completely identical with Category:Bohemian monarchs. From some point in time onwards, all the Dukes, later Kings of Bohemia were also Margraves of Moravia. However, this is not necessarily true in earlier times, especially with respect to Samo and the rulers of Great Moravia, who are probably also Czech monarchs, but not Bohemian ones. I will post this on the deletion page.

• As to the categorization of Austrian rulers (in which I have a slightly bigger stake since I created many of the pages), I think your proposal of having a common category for Dukes and Archdukes makes sense. There is the additional problem that not all Archdukes were also rulers, which is why I would like to keep those who were not out of all ruler categories and rather retain title-neutral category names. At the moment, there is Category:Rulers of Austria (which also includes those lines of the Habsburg dynasty who ruled in Inner Austria or Tyrol, but not Austria proper, and which has a Category:Emperors of Austria subcategory), and Category:Non-ruling Austrian royalty, which is a separate subcategory of Category:Austrian history. I think non-ruling Archdukes (and consorts etc.) should remain in the latter group. Another question would be whether it makes more sense to subdivide them depending whether they were Babenbergs (Magraves and Dukes) or Habsburgs (Dukes and Archdukes).

Looking forward to your comments and ideas, Martg76 00:41, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC).

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 1000 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) 19:33, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

French communes

Hi! good job on the French communes! Could we use categories in the format "Communes of Seine-Saint-Denis" rather than "Communes of the Seine-Saint-Denis département"? I have already placed communes of Calvados under such a category. The advantage is that it contains the same information in a much more concise way, and saves space in the category line of articles. olivier 14:29, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Sister project templates

Why are you moving the Sister projects templates around? I see no discussion about this on the Talk page, and I find your naming scheme very confusing, and your templates redundant. -- Netoholic @ 06:00, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)

First, allow me to apologize that I reverted your recent edit. I was adding Template:Wikisource full to some pages at the time, and the change to redirect had broken the template (by creating a double redirect). As for the "why", obviously, I think it's better this way. The previous naming scheme didn't make much since ("src" and "srca"), and I do hope my own is better. If you're confused about the scheme, you may consult the table I created at Misplaced Pages:Wikisource.

Why wasn't any of this discussed at the talk pages? I honestly didn't think anybody would be interested. When I started working on this, the templates were hardly used. (I am currently in the process of adding them to Shakespeare's work.) If you object, I shall take much delight in discussing these new changes at whatever talk page you see fit. In the meanwhile, however, I must ask that you do not take any extreme actions, as quite a lot of pages use the templates at the moment and breaking them is not a wise idea. -- Itai 06:08, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Other's have been working on these for a few weeks now. Your table and scheme seems needlessly complicated, since whe at most need only teo, maybe three, templates for Wikisource linking Title, Author, and configurable. Making ten templates for such a function is over-done, and will lead to many more problems than I think you realize. It is really great that you are adding these, but we need to work out a system that everyone can use easily. -- Netoholic @ 06:22, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)

I agree that no more than three templates are needed, and if you'll look carefully you'll that's the number I provided, the rest being minor variations. However, this is neither the time nor the place to discuss this. (I've been awake for some 20-something hours now, and my judgement is somewhat clouded by this.) I honestly can't see how is {{srca}} clearer than {{Wikisource author}}, but I suppose this had best be discussed. If you must, temporarily revert any changes I have made to any existing template. The table in Misplaced Pages:Wikisource (which I've copied to User:Itai/Wikisource) represents my vision for the Misplaced Pages templates. I honestly belive that my naming is clearer than that used before. At the moment, however, I think I shall retire. I would be most obliged if you were to specify the talk page in which you think this had best be discussed. -- Itai 06:43, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I haven't "lost interest". The "sister project" templates need to be named simply and consistently to be of any use. Please don't move time, or create multiple ones that serve the same function. -- Netoholic @ 05:31, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

You seem to have a desire to create templates within templates. Do you realize how much more complicated you are making this whole implementation? With all the "templates within templates" and templates that are only different by one word yet share the same function, you are making this whole area confusing and unmanageable. Please stop. I know you are well intentioned, but please make it simple for your other editors. -- Netoholic @ 15:29, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

If grammar is a problem, then fix the wording of the existing templates. Don't make a new one just to add one word. Take a look at Template:Wikisource and Template:Wikisourcepar to see my recent suggested wording. Simplicity has a major impact on the usefulness of these templates, so I don't see any reason to create more than three (the two above plus an author: one). -- Netoholic @ 15:48, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

PLEASE stop screwing around with these templates. You are attempting to "fix" something that just isn't broken. These have worked fine for months without your really poorly implemented changes. -- Netoholic @ 17:28, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

I have no particular axe to grind in the contest between yourself and Netoholic, but could the two of you please come to some sort of agreement on the various templates in Misplaced Pages:Sister projects: it's making my head spin. FWIW my opinion is that we need three templates per project, one for "stuff to be moved", and two for cross-references. Each "class" should be based upon a single master template which can then be copied across to the other sister projects to give a uniform appearance across the whole set. Maybe we could discuss this over there, like grown-ups? --Phil | Talk 17:36, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Itai - you are a fool, and a troublemaker. Damaging article and adding burden to the servers by fighting over your shit-poor templates is poor attitude. Please stop. You also didn't even bother to check what you were reverting. -- Netoholic @ 10:14, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)