Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:45, 16 December 2006

User talk:HighInBC/Header

UB article

Thanks for comments in the UB article discussions and my user page. I did have a question for you, actually, since you're someone who both has an understanding about the book and is well-versed and very active in the larger wikipedia world. As I said on the article discussion page, I have an inclination toward making the "Cosmology" and "History and future of the world" sections articles in their own right. I think it's justified for reasons of organization of the material and making the main article more manageable to digest for the average reader. Do you think expansion into a series of articles is warranted at this time and in line with "notability" considerations?

The few ancillary TUB-related articles like Thought Adjuster and The Fifth Epochal Revelation don't seem to gather much editor attention and TA had to survive an AfD, while FER is tagged as being not so great an article right now. (Personally, I don't intend to improve FER though I've edited it in the past, as I don't think it's really justified as a topic. The phrase to me should really just be a redirect to the main TUB page, like how "The Urantia Papers" is, since FER is essentially only a slang phrase and not so much a topic. An alternate idea I had was to rename the article to be "Revelation (The Urantia Book)" and have it be a more generalized article on the concept of "revelation" per the book, eg. go into "autorevelation" vs "epochal", but haven't mustered the time and interest quite.)

So, anyhow, I'd be interested in your opinion on whether you think expansion to additional articles is justifiable for the overall TUB topic. Thanks. Wazronk 04:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with The Urantia Book would know that a wealth of content exists. What is needed is third party reliable sources. I would say that any article that can be more than just a stub with verifiable material is justified. The existing article is large enough to justify branching articles. Eventually the article can become a summery style article where each section refers to it's own article. See Canada for an example.

The second challenge is not one of acceptance, but one of practicality. It may be hard to find editors for branching subjects. However, critics are bound to show up, and they are useful in articles that get no other attention if only to keep the few active editors honest.

When a new article is created that is a split of an existing article, there is often a movement to merge the information into the original article. To avoid this it is best to start a new article with a reasonable amount of well sourced information. Not just a stub, you can start in your userspace by gathering sources for the specific subject like this: User:HighInBC/Hempology 101 - notes. Once it is at the point where it is a respectable article the Move command can be used to bring it into the article space. This is a big task, and I will help. HighInBC 04:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks in advance for your assistance, I appreciate it. I'll likely piece together a "Cosmology" article and follow your advice about making use of my userspace to draft it. When I wrote the glossary I did it offline on my own since there weren't as many editors around but it makes sense to do drafts online if others can then assist. I'll let you know when I have something reasonable fleshed out. All the best. Wazronk 05:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me know when you have a start page, and begin with sources, I can read those and help bring out content. HighInBC 05:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Creating the article online not only allows for collaberation, but provides a very valuable edit history for the future. HighInBC 15:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD on Anderson

Hi Ryan. You closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/James Anderson (mathematician) as "no consensus". Could you please explain why you did this? By the way, I'm also an admin so I know the policies, I'm just interested in how you applied them in this case. Thanks in advance for your explanation. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the arguments on both side seemed compatable with policy. That seeking to delete were claiming a lack of notability, while that claiming to keep were claiming notability. The major difference of opinion was if the sources in the article qualified the subject as notable.

This seemed very close to delete to me, but there was not a clear majority in my eye. Straight number counting gives about 61% for delete. I attempted to going through an remove votes that were not based in reason and policy, but the percent remained the same.

This was one of the first batch of AfD's I closed, and while I am more confident with the decision No consensus than I would be with Delete(the choice I was leaning too), I am certainly open to an constructive critisisms on the closing. I am always looking for friendly advice. HighInBC 14:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That's understandable. I also thought it was close, but I thought it should have been a delete, not no consensus. Perhaps we counted differently, but once you eliminate the keep votes based on ideas of "debunking", etc., I thought there was a clear majority (although not overwhelming) for delete. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 15:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, I almost decided delete. I am sure my judgement will improve as my experience grows. HighInBC 16:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my opinion is along Chan-Ho's lines: I'd probably have closed it as a delete, but it is a close call, and I can understand that you went the other way. If I may make one suggestion to you, HighInBC, add a short explanation of how you came to your decision if an AfD is close. But I like it that you don't shrink from the tough calls. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe he did the right thing. It should have been moved and then kept, and that is what ended up happening. Mathmo 21:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

IP 162.40.20.99

That IP is an open proxy, accessable through irage.us. Also, thanks for reverting that vandalism. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. HighInBC 17:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Cannabis (drug) worthy of 2nd FAC?

I feel that Cannabis (drug) has improved, and is worthy of a second go for FAC. I'm quite inexperienced, so I thought I'd ask you if you felt the same way. So, what are your thoughts? --Jmax- 06:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is defenetly above the common article in quality. However they are very picky about FAC. May I suggest you post the article at Misplaced Pages:Peer review stating your interest in making it featured. They will find the smallest of problems and point them out.

Things like the {{NPOV-section}} tag need to be addressed and fixed of course, some of the images can be retaken(I can help there), and new ones could be helpfull. I will look further into it later. HighInBC 16:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

please see User talk:Srkris

please see User talk:Srkris

bye Pluto.2006 10:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Concerning a recent revert

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=NetHack&diff=94582664&oldid=94582205

Hello, I noticed you reverted my edit (I was that anonymous IP address). Before I undo the revert, I'd like to make sure it was a misunderstanding.

I added those words :-p From the edit comments, it looks like you thought that I removed them. So I'm about to revert unless you disagree. --Dragontamer 22:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

lol, my mistake. Thanks I reverted myself. HighInBC 22:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

User:John Zdralek

FYI, just as a minor point of correction, you said in this edit summary, "fair use images cannot be used outside of their articles, per copyright law". As a minor point of correction, it's Misplaced Pages policy, not copyright law, that sets that restriction. I point it out not to disagree with you (obviously, you are 100% correct to remove the images and the reason I went to the page was to make sure they had been removed), but just so that you will know and won't have to endure someone angrily adding them back, accusing you of making legal threats, and doing other annoying things people sometimes do when you take their images away from them. BigDT 01:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well technically it would not fall under fair use on his talk page unless we was discussing the subject in question. So while not all fair use images on talk pages are copyright violations, his were(unless I am still wrong hehe). A small point, but an important one. I don't think it could be seen as a legal threat because I made no threat, and pointing out when something is contrary to copyright law is normal.

I should have qualified the statement as In this situation.... But it is not my job to enforce law(thank god), only policy, so valid point there. Thanks. HighInBC 02:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

quizzical expression similar to Captain Haddock and question 'just the CCM image right?'--John Zdralek 02:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Only Fair use images are not allowed to be shown on userpages, all other licenses are. The reason being that the fair use images are copyrighted in a way incompatible with use, except that they qualify under Fair use when used in certain articles.

On the image page there should be detailed fair use rational showing how it meets the fair use policy of Misplaced Pages for each article it is on. However, our policy only allows it in articles that meet these criteria, not userpages.

I see you have been very helpful to Misplaced Pages, and I hope you continue to be. Thanks for discussing this, if you have anymore questions just ask me. HighInBC 02:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed you created those images, I have sent you a note on your talk page as to how to release them to a compatible copyright so you can use them here. HighInBC 02:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

yep mis-licensed, i'm as far as finding a Misplaced Pages format for easily plugging and unplugging copyright tags into. Including an image of a building design linked to an institution with brochure cover photography and page-layout art...

File information

Description	'1966 brochure cover, photograph art of Foothills Hospital
Source	scan of 1966 promotional brochure
Date	2006
Author	author(s) of cover image art unknown
Permission (Reusing this file)	This article contains promotional content. Please help improve it by removing promotional language and inappropriate external links, and by adding encyclopedic text written from a neutral point of view. (Learn how and when to remove this message) An editor has launched a copyright investigation involving this section. The text under investigation is currently hidden from public view, but is accessible in the page history. Please do not remove this notice or restore blanked content until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk, or volunteer response agent. The purported copyright violation copies text from {{{url}}} (Copyvios report); as such, this page has been listed on the copyright problems page. Unless the copyright status of the text of this page or section is clarified and determined to be compatible with Misplaced Pages's content license, the problematic text and revisions or the entire page may be deleted one week after the time of its listing. What can I do to resolve the issue? If you hold the copyright to this text, you can license it in a manner that allows its use on Misplaced Pages. You must permit the use of your material under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). Explain your intent to license the content on this article's discussion page. To confirm your permission, you can either display a notice to this effect at the site of original publication or send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal letter to the Wikimedia Foundation. These messages must explicitly permit use under CC BY-SA and the GFDL. See Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials. Note that articles on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view and must be verifiable in published third-party sources; consider whether, copyright issues aside, your text is appropriate for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. You can demonstrate that this text is in the public domain or is already under a license suitable for Misplaced Pages. Explain this on this article's discussion page, with reference to evidence. Misplaced Pages:Public domain and Misplaced Pages:Compatibly licensed may assist in determining the status. Otherwise, you may rewrite this page without copyright-infringing material. Your rewrite should be placed on this page, where it will be available for an administrator or clerk to review it at the end of the listing period. Follow this link to create the temporary subpage. Please mention the rewrite upon completion on this article's discussion page. Simply modifying copyrighted text is not sufficient to avoid copyright infringement—if the original copyright violation cannot be cleanly removed or the article reverted to a prior version, it is best to write the article from scratch. (See Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing.) For license compliance, any content used from the original article must be properly attributed; if you use content from the original, please leave a note at the top of your rewrite saying as much. You may duplicate non-infringing text that you had contributed yourself. It is always a good idea, if rewriting, to identify the point where the copyrighted content was imported to Misplaced Pages and to check to make sure that the contributor did not add content imported from other sources. When closing investigations, clerks and administrators may find other copyright problems than the one identified. If this material is in the proposed rewrite and cannot be easily removed, the rewrite may not be usable. Steps to list an article at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems: Add the following to the bottom of Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/2024 December 24: * {{subst:article-cv|User talk:H}} from {{{url}}}. ~~~~ Add the following template to the talk page of the contributor of the material: {{subst:Nothanks-web|pg=User talk:H|url={{{url}}}}} ~~~~ Place {{copyvio/bottom}} at the end of the portion you want to blank. If nominating the entire page, please place this template at the top of the page, set the "fullpage" parameter to "yes", and place {{copyvio/bottom}} at the very end of the article. ] — permission is given for use on Misplaced Pages only, and does not include third parties. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/CC-BY-2.0Creative Commons Attribution 2.0truetrue This template should only be used on file pages.

now I'll try and read through what a Cc-by-2.0 is and plug it in.--John Zdralek 04:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)