Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:52, 1 March 2012

Archives

2003-2005 Template:Multicol Jan-July 2006 Jan-June 2007 Jan-June 2008 Jan-June 2009 Jan-June 2010 Jan-June 2011 Template:Multicol-break Aug-Dec 2006 July-Dec 2007 July-Dec 2008 July-Dec 2009 July-Dec 2010 July-Dec 2011 Template:Multicol-end

Jon Driver

Hi, in view of your previous involvement, you may wish to comment on the discussion at Talk:Jon Driver#Request. TerriersFan (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

categories in Restorations of Masonic...

Howdy Gandalf, I undid your deletion of the categories in the redirect page of Restorations... I know that you are correct in that most redirect pages do not contain categories. I would like to argue that this is an exception under "Sometimes a redirect is placed in an article category because the form of the redirected title is more appropriate to the context of that category." The only category shared between the redirect article and the target article is "esoteric cosmology" otherwise the book contains a unique set of categories which would not make sense to place on the Bromwell article (he was not an architect, but the book deals specifically with sacred geometry and architecture) however they are applicable to the book itself (especially the "masonic books" category). I believe this is a strong enough reason to include categories in the redirect article, but if you disagree please let me know why and we can discuss it further. Coffeepusher (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It's your call, but you should certainly trim back that list of cats - Category:Magic squares is a sub-cat of Category:Numerology, which is in turn a sub-cat of Category:Mathematics and mysticism, so you only need one of those cats. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

well the book contains Magic squares it also contains other parts of numerology not related to magic squares. I will delete the Mathematics and mysticismCoffeepusher (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

and I forgot to mention that I do not intend to have it be a redirect for long, I am working on a full article, but the book is difficult to summarize to say the least so it is taking a bit of time.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Graham's number digits...

Hello, Thank you for correcting the 215th digit in the rightmost Graham's number rightmost digits section: your revision is definitely correct checking https://oeis.org/A133613/b133613.txt

Marcokrt (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

thanks for fixing all the glitches

I want to thank you for fixing so many glitches in articles I work on. I am fairly new and am figuring it out and your fixes are really helpful, especially when I get a style issue wrong. The peer interaction is comparable to professional peer review. Gotta love Misplaced Pages! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akarpe (talk • contribs) 17:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Bullets at AFD

Hi, all the bullets at the global warming AFD make it VERY hard to follow. Bullets should be for the keep/delete declaration. Subsequent back and forth dialogue should just be indented with colons, and NOT asterisks. Please consider tweaking your dialogue comments to help clean up the AFD discussion. I'd do it myself, but I just got chastised for a an ill-considered but well-intended crossing of the line when refactoring. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Notable

Even though I have been editing Misplaced Pages for six years I still do not understand notability. It seems capricious to me. For instance one year (2008?) a hundred articles about web comics (comics published only on the web) were deleted by an wiki administrator because they weren't notable. I wondered how a hundred articles on a non-notable topic could be written. For instance I was poking around and found an article about a 14th century Latvian nobleman. I do not know how that could possibly be notable. I would guess not. For instance I have written articles on very obscure biochemistry topics, and they have not been deleted for lack of notability.

Recently you invoked notability as a reason to delete an article I created, . It is true that it is notable only because it is the topic of an on-line video. But in 5 days 150,000 people have seen that video and there is no other place on the internet for them to find out the topic is a joke. So if an obscure Latvian nobleman is "notable", why is this not? Certainly not more than 100 people in the whole world have ever heard of the nobleman. You would have to be an intense scholar of medieval Baltic history to know of him.

I realize this sounds petulant, but if we were sitting together you would see I am frustrated at my inability to understand, and not trying to start an argument. I really want to know. Nick Beeson (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I can understand your frustration, but our notability benchmark is very clear. WP:NOTE says that a topic must have "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" before it counts as notable as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned. So an on-line video will only be notable if several third parties have written about it in reliable sources. The "fractal fraction" video just does not pass this test. In my experience, the best policy in these situations is to try not to get too involved, and to move on to something else. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Archimedean Spiral

Hello Gandalf61, I just noticed that you have deleted a part of my changes to this article which I find however quite important. I wanted to point at the often misleading characterization of the Archimedean spiral as a "spiral with constant separation distance of its turnings", which is wrong seen from a mathematical viewpoint. I have first edited the german article :

http://de.wikipedia.org/Archimedische_Spirale#.22Windungsabstand.22

and would like now to add a similar remark to the english article. I might however transfer it to a little subsection if this would help. -- Enyak (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Once you had corrected the description of the spiral in the article, I couldn't see much point in re-stating the incorrect description and then just saying it was "somewhat misleading" with no further explanation. This will confuse a reader who has not come across the incorrect description in the first place. If you want to add this point to the article, I think you should (a) find a source (outside of Misplaced Pages) that uses the incorrect description and then (b) explain exactly why this description is not correct. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Gandalf, I can understand your point. Now I have established a little subsection in order to explain the difference of distance concepts in a few words, but precisely. -- Enyak (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Vedic square.PNG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Vedic square.PNG, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

RV on big bang

Please raise your objections here so they can be addressed: . IRWolfie- (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your change because you removed several reliable sources without discussion with the comment that they came that they came from "religious and small time publishers". InterVarsity Press and Rowman & Littlefield are hardly "small time" and there is no reason why religious publishers should not provide sources for statements about religious issues. Now that you have correcttly started a discussion about these sources on the talk page, I am content to wait and see what the outcome of that discussion is. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I acted correctly at all times, I suggest you consult WP:BRD if you think I have not. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)