Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:48, 3 May 2016

/shortlist

Archives

1BC-2013 2014 2015

"Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for that rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge"

Polish Constitutional crisis

Per WP:RM#CM obviously controversial moves should be discussed first and not moved until a WP:CONSENSUS is reached, please respect this policy. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Diplomacy

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Staszek Lem, with much pleasure, you are awarded this Barnstar for your even-handedness and fairness in trying to resolve peacefully, conflicts on Misplaced Pages! -- Poeticbent talk 05:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Pilot Pirx

On 15 January 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pilot Pirx, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Stanisław Lem's character pilot Pirx defeats a perfect robot thanks to human imperfection? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pilot Pirx. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Human spaceflight

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Human spaceflight. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• responded. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Google Street View in Africa

I'm unsure what your objectives are regarding the removal of the information indicating what coverage certain countries and territories have. Clearing unreferenced information is good, but I think you have gone a little overboard. Maybe doing some research and adding references before doing something hasty would have been better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hesky10 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I have also noticed you have removed large chunks from the google street view in Asia and Europe pages. I must protest at these changes and say they are not beneficial to users, you now have to navigate so much text to find the information you want, which you didn't need to do before as the page was split by country who had coverage of varying amounts and you could skip to a certain country/territory.

I hope I'm not the only person who preferred the previous layout which was here, and in the Asia and Europe pages respectively, and hopefully I have given enough reason for you to change them back to how they were previously. Hesky10 (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Hesky10: I am disinclined to acquiesce your request (means "No!"). Misplaced Pages has certain policies which were militantly ignored by "Google Earth" sockpuppets. They were given quite some time to clean their act. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer, I'm sure I will get used to the layout changes in time! Hesky10 (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

You have removed the entire list of places covered by Google Street View in Europe and Google Street View in Asia. But the list of covered places had references. On https://www.google.com/maps you can see that listed places are covered or not. This reference was maybe not properly formatted, but that should have been fixed.--BIL (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@BIL: A software output is not a valid reference. It is called original research Staszek Lem (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The output of Google Streetview is not original research. The output of Google Streetview counts as source for what the content of Google Streetview is. Please describe where in WP:NOR this is described. All of the internet is software output.--BIL (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

::@BIL: Not not everything on internet is software output. Anyway, if you want to waste your time and make a catalog of Google Street View, I will no longer object, as long as you will provide a valid reference for each and every item. How long will it take for you? Staszek Lem (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

At least for the list of included areas in Streetview, it must be accepted that it is referenced by Streetview itself. The list of introductions by date is more doubtful as Streetview itself does not include this info directly. So for the latter list I won't really try to revert any deletions.--BIL (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Beast fable

Panchatantra is mentioned prominently in Beast fable -- in fact, it constitutes one of this article's few referenced statements. And Beast fable occurs in {{Panchatantra}}. Isn't this sufficient justification for the template to appear in the article? Phil wink (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Phil wink: Navboxes are used to navigate across articles which constitute immediate coverage of the topic in question. "beast fable" is a generic term. We don't include "panchatantra" template into India article, do we? Panchatantra is mentioned prominently in Beast fable simply because this article is severely underdeveloped. Likewise we don't include {{Aesop}} and others into "beast fable", because this would be upside-down hierarchy. The "immediate coverage" criterion is crucial, otherwise we will have some articles mightily littered by marginally relevant templates. 00:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

best AfD nom ever...

for Sanathdeva Murutenge. :-) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources guidelines

Here is the direct link: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_and_secondary_sources#.22Secondary.22_is_not_another_way_to_spell_.22good.22 Articles in journals are often not free to read full text. Don't delete such self-published sources. thx. I have purposefully found primary sources that are free with full text. --Asterixf2 (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

This looks like a direct link to wp:FRINGE, if not nonsense. See more at your User talk:Asterixf2 - DVdm (talk) 09:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Asterixf2. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from Entropic force. However, Misplaced Pages is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Misplaced Pages to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.--Asterixf2 (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Asterixf2: I did not "censor" anything. Please don't use warning templates the purpose of which you probably don't understand. Please write in your own words what you have in mind. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Vaxxed Drama

Your input would be appreciated Here. Thanks. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:MMR vaccine controversy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:MMR vaccine controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Victim feminism

Hi Staszek, I just want to ask you a couple questions, as I'm trying to assume good faith at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Victim feminism. Why are you arguing so forcefully on a topic that you admittedly know very little about? You have taken a controversial political framing used by a certain segment of feminists and argued that it is just a classification system used by "some scholars". That is very misleading. The concepts that it represents are already covered on Misplaced Pages (under more neutrally titled articles such as gender feminism and radical feminism). What can I do to convince you that "victim feminism" is a politically biased term? Kaldari (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)