Misplaced Pages

User talk:Uncle G/Archive/2008-01-01: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:Uncle G | Archive Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:17, 19 March 2007 editUncle G (talk | contribs)Administrators52,482 edits →Tiberium: On edit warring over original research← Previous edit Revision as of 16:15, 19 March 2007 edit undoScumbag (talk | contribs)799 editsm →TiberiumNext edit →
Line 159: Line 159:


Could you reset also the Finnish Sandbox by your SANDBOT? Some times vandals remove the header template. <nowiki>{{subst:Hiekka}}</nowiki> resets the sandbox. —] 17:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Could you reset also the Finnish Sandbox by your SANDBOT? Some times vandals remove the header template. <nowiki>{{subst:Hiekka}}</nowiki> resets the sandbox. —] 17:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
*I've created the necessary accounts and added this task to the 'bot. The first run should be in just over 1 hour's time. ] 22:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


==AfD nomination of ]== ==AfD nomination of ]==
Line 335: Line 334:
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | In recognition of your massive contributions to numerous Wikimedia projects, and in particular for completely rewriting ], ... have a barnstar. Many thanks, ] 08:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC) |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | In recognition of your massive contributions to numerous Wikimedia projects, and in particular for completely rewriting ], ... have a barnstar. Many thanks, ] 08:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
|} |}

== Micropolitan areas. ==

Thanks for the tip. I checked for incoming redirects, and ] did not have an incoming from ] -- turns out the table links directly to ]. But thanks again. ] 21:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==
Thanks for catching my over-zelous db-attack tag. :) In the back of my mind I was thinking of the character from ''Tron''. Just not in the front of my mind. Cheers! --] 18:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
*No worries. &#9786; ] 18:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

==Biting newbies==
Hmm, clearly we disagree over what constitutes a good faith attempt to improve an article - the ] as it stood struck me (and still strikes me) as empty of useful content and the change designed purely to avoid an appropriate speedy delete. It could possibly have been speedied for that very reason - I reverted it instead simply because it was quicker and neater and there was no sign that the article was going to grow to anything beyond an essentially empty entry (as it has, in fact, turned out). In any case, it hardly counts as biting the newbies, I'd have said, and I was under the impression that that non-removal of a speedy by the author ''is'', in fact, a firm policy (although, of course, so is ]:). However, thanks for providing your POV on the issue which I'll genuinely bear in mind. All the best ] 19:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
*"the change designed purely to avoid an appropriate speedy delete" &mdash; You're not ] as well as biting the newbies. As for your statement that "there was no sign that the article was going to grow to anything beyond an essentially empty entry (as it has, in fact, turned out)": You can hardly use that as justification, since it it is probable that it was the biting itself that has caused the entry to develop no further. Think of things from ]'s point of view. Xyr first attempt to start the article is hit with a deletion tag in under a minute. ] is an editor who hasn't yet learned the use of "Show Preview", and can have gaps of tens of minutes between edits. Given that, it's possible that this was to be the first edit of a long series of edits. When xe improves the article a few minutes later, adding some actual content, xyr edit is reverted a minute later with an edit summary that, essentially, chastises xem not to do that and all of xyr content is removed from the article. A little later, the article is deleted entirely. It's not ''that'' surprising that xyr contributions have ceased, and the hypothesis that the biting put xem off improving the article is just as likely as your hypothesis that xe didn't intend to improve the article. ] 20:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
:*Fair points, all - and you're certainly right that I did forget to ]. As I said, I will genuinely bear what you said in mind and will try not to be so overly-zealous in reverting and speedying RCs from newbies (I'm essentially a newbie myself after all). Regards ] 20:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

==]==
Hello! If you add a title to ] before performing the deletion, the page with cascading protection enabled (in this case, ]) must have its cache purged before the protection will take effect. —] 20:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
*Wouldn't you know it? That was the one page where I ''hadn't'' tried "action=purge". &#9786; ] 20:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

March 17, 2007 Informal Request For Misplaced Pages Administrative Resolution: Request For A Stand-Alone 'Scientific communities of practice' Misplaced Pages Site.

Since the owner of the 'Communities of Practice' site has summarily removed the 'scientific communities of practice' contribution today (without comment or negotiation), a separate stand-alone 'Scientific communities of practice' (shown below) entry is offered to avoid site warring, while still giving voice to a large and growing body of scientific research: Notable citations in the field of 'scientific communities of practice' include the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, to academic institutions around the world. (Notability simply cannot be cited as a concern with this scientific field).

As the scientific readership of Misplaced Pages grows, the need to address their scientific interests must grow also. Moreover, there are a growing number of consumers who would like to understand 'the science' of many of the central issues of our time: 'Scientific communities of practice' is one of those issues.

We are asking for an expedited approval of the 'Scientific communities of practice' entry in exchange for removing this topic from all other Misplaced Pages sites. We would appreciate your expedited approval of this request, and we would welcome any editorial contributions that would strengthen the encyclopedic knowledge that this entry affords to Misplaced Pages readers.

Sincerely, Stevenson-Perez 01:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)stevenson-perezStevenson-Perez 01:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


Scientific communities of practice
As revealed in the 2003 Snyder & Souza-Briggs “Communities of Practice” research publication (]), all communities of practice (CoPs) represent the informal levels of human interaction that steward the knowledge-assets of organizations and societies.

Scientific CoPs are no exception in this regard.

The detailed scientific analysis of the unique applications of knowledge assets that take place within scientific communities of practice has become an area of intense research in recent years; particularly as many western nations begin to transition into Science and Technology Information Age economies. As Coakes and Clark make clear in their latest 2006 communities of practice research (“Communities of Practice In Information & Knowledge Management” ]), the proper application of knowledge assets by pertinent communities of practice has suddenly become a central business concern of many modern societies.

Said another way, the specific approaches utilized by scientific CoPs in the development and the application of their scientific knowledge assets is rapidly becoming the new economic engine of many former industry-based nations, as they transition into Science-Based Societies.

Obviously, ‘what really works’ in the operation of scientific CoPs, and ‘what doesn’t work’ -- as scientific organizations and scientific societies attempt to create and manage new scientific knowledge -- is a topic that demands rigorous scientific investigation.

The most immediately distinguishing factor about scientific communities of practice, is that all scientific CoPs are unified, and readily distinguishable from all other CoPs, by their strict adherence to the use of the scientific method in the day-to-day operations that create and manage scientific knowledge:

1. By definition, all scientific CoPs develop and steward scientific knowledge-assets; after all, the Latin root for ‘science’ means ‘having knowledge’. All scientific organizations within the scientific community are knowledge management organizations.

2. Almost without exception, scientific CoPs also steward the learning-assets of their organizations: Again, by definition, all succesful scientific research organizations must possess a vibrant CoP learning-asset dimension. All scientific research organizations engage in a disciplined refinement of scientific data to new scientific information to new scientific knowledge, as they engage in scientific organizational learning.

3. In addition, scientific CoPs almost universally steward suffering-abatement-assets that are used daily by the organization. As an example, consider the stated mission of the U.S. Food & Drug Administration to ensure the safety & efficacy of all American drug products & medical devices: All legally authorized medical organizations in the U.S. (and in most western nations) have a counter-part scientific CoP dimension to respond to this federal mandate. Other examples of where this 'greater-good responsibility' CoP principle is applied include in the operation of all nuclear energy research facilities, aircraft manufacturers, and nanomolecule design organizations, that have similar responsiblities to promote the safety and quality of life of citizens worldwide.

Several academic groups worldwide have begun to address the challenge of improving those scientific CoPs that have global dimensions, or that require significant digital and computer network support ( ] ).

Kienle & Wessner offered their Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning model to measure the actual performance of scientific CoPs in Germany. ( ] ).

Scientific CoPs in most Western nations, such as the United States, also demonstrate three additional characteristics in their operation that are remarkable:

1. Ever since the release of the Snyder and Souza-Briggs Community-of-Practice research (and their articulation of the landmark CoP definition, as cited above) scientists now understand that their scientific CoPs are always operating (24/7). All grant-funded science in the U.S., especially government-supported clinical medicine organizations, always operates in a scientific CoP setting.

2. Scientific CoPs operate principally at the informal organizational level, not at the formal, legal, or the administrative levels of organizational structure. The human interactions that steward the knowledge-assets, the learning-assets and the suffering-abatement assets of scientific CoPs can usually not be located in the organizational “org-chart” of formal roles and responsibilities, but rather at the informal level of professional interactions for ‘how things really get done’ in the scientific organization.

3. The quality of the knowledge-assets, learning-assets, and suffering-abatement assets of any given scientific CoP can be measured scientifically. The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has acknowledged the importance of precisely measuring the quality of all performance elements of scientific learning organizations -- especially at the informal operational level -- in such initiatives as its NIST Baldrige National Quality Program Health Care Criteria (]).

The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) has also recently acknowledged the validity of the scientific communities of practice approach to measuring the 'value' of NIH-sponsored scientific research, with the launching of the new NIH Office of Behavioral & Social Science Research (please refer to the NIH "Healthier Lives Through Behavioral & Social Sciences Research" Report {}). The specific intent of this new NIH program is to require a scientific analysis of the quality of biomedical research, beyond the levels of the purity and functionality of the material discoveries, to include the intended impact of these biomedical inventions upon the affected communities of practice (even at a global level).

Many credible elements of the American academic community are now insisting upon an early educational exposure of students to basic scientific communities of practice principles. Examples of ongoing research in this promising area of early childhood education in scientific CoP principles include Northwestern University’s “Bootstrapping a Community of Practice: Learning Science by Doing Projects in a High School Classroom Program” .

The U.S. National Academy of Science has recently become even more strident in this regard, insisting that the scientific community must actively pursue the creation of more-useful & more-comprehensive communities of practice in science & technology -- on a global scale . The National Academy of Science has anchored the success of its 'scientific sustainability' program to the quality of the scientific communities of practice that it sponsors .

It should be pointed out, that scientific CoP research is still in its infancy. Much more precision & clarity about 'what scientific CoPs are' and 'how scientific CoPs operate best' can be anticipated in the years to come.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scientific_Community_of_Practice"

== those improper speedy delete tags ==

Thanks for catching the improper speedy delete tags I left on a couple of pages. I remain confused about the usefulness of a talk page that is not paired with an article page, though. Did the article get moved and the talk get redirected? (That seems non-standard ... Maybe the "orphan" talk could be a subpage to the destination's talk instead?) The following each give a "red" article" and a "blue" discussion. Please clarify what is happening here. Thanks! --] <sup>]</sup> 10:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:List_of_scientists_who_dispute_the_anthropogenic_global_warming_theory&redirect=no
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Scientists_questioning_the_UN_IPCC_assessment_of_global_warming&redirect=no
*Article talk pages that aren't paired with article pages are kept if they contain archived deletion discussions. (This is because prior to 2005, deletion discussions were regularly archived on talk pages.) Otherwise ] applies. However, the article talk pages that you tagged ''did'' have corresponding articles.<p>Notice that when one renames an article, one has the option to rename the talk page along with it. That is the most common way that talk pages become redirects. That the article and the talk page are redirects doesn't make the talk page speedily deletable, however. After all, the talk page is there for editorial discussion of whether the article should actually be a redirect and what it should redirect to, for starters. Criterion #G8 only applies to ''non-existent'' articles. Redirection is not deletion.<p>The two talk pages that you list above are redirects left behind after both an article and a talk page were moved together, and the resultant redirect in the article namespace was later deleted but the talk page was not. ] 10:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
:* Okay; no worries! Thanks for your reply. I'm just trying to understand. It seems as though edits have been made since I brought this up such that the specific pages I mentioned are now working as I originally expected. i.e. I can no longer get to a talk page w/o an article with the ''exact'' (not a redirected) name. --] <sup>]</sup> 11:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

I clarified the reason why I tagged it with {{tl|dicdef}}. Just wondering if I could get your comment at ]. Thanks, ] 13:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

==Sandbox bot on en-Wikisource==
Hello Uncle G. ] recently started resetting the ], but the format has changed since it stopped a few months ago. Please update it to use :
<pre>
{{/Please do not edit this line}}

{{sandbox}}
</pre>

Thank you. —<small>{]} ] 02:41:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)</small>
*Done. It should take effect with the next run. ] 11:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

==Straphanger==
Hello Uncle G. I'm of the view that ] is a dicdef and belongs on Wiktionary. Am I mistaken? ] ] 12:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
*Wiktionary could certainly do with ], and the quotations are useful for a dictionary article (They demonstrate the word being used in the 19th century.) and irrelevant to an encyclopaedia article (They don't actually tell us anything at all ''about'' straphangers, not even what they are.), so some of this content would certainly be useful. The main question is whether there is scope for having an encyclopaedia article ''about straphangers''. For that, I strongly suggest looking for sources, to see whether anyone has discussed either subway or military straphangers in published works. ''If'' sources do not exist, then all that would exist here is overlapping redirects to the actual articles for which this is a colloquial name, and hence what we actually have is a ] article (between ], ] passenger, and others) that has too much dictionary article content mixed in.<p>Have a look for sources. ] 12:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

==Bot==
Hi, I noticed that you run a sandbot in Finnish Misplaced Pages. There is a no need to reset ] talk page, just sandbox. :) Regards --] 14:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
*On most projects, both the sandbox and its talk page are reset. ] 14:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
:Yeah, I know, but there is actual talk about sandbox. Well, it does't really matter. Just saying because seems like someone reverted it every time. --] 15:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

== Tiberium ==
With all due respect, I would like to tell you that your examples on editing the article are nonsense. You didn't find any sources '''about''' Tiberium. You found obvious facts to cite like "without Tiberium you lose". In contrast, the information purged from the article '''was''' cited to sources that anyone can confirm. I guess Tycho was right about Misplaced Pages. See you when the page gets unprotected, and people who have expertise on the subject of Tiberium fix it, and AMiB purges it again. You realize he's been blocked for 3RR over this behavior previously, right? ] 15:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
*It can be easily seen that the sources ''do'' discuss Tiberium, by reading what they say. As explained to you several times over the past fortnight by several editors, the information that was removed was a novel analysis and conclusion based upon playing the game, and cited playing the game itself as its source ("Source: C&amp;C1", for example). That, from what you write here, you clearly want to continue to edit war over original research, rather than follow the example of making some effort to find sources and writing proper encyclopaedia article content based upon sources, increases my previously expressed disappointment. Please learn how to be a ''good'' encyclopaedist, that follows our ] content policy. ] 15:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:15, 19 March 2007

Notices
Yes, I am an administrator.
If you wish to discuss the content of an article, please do so on that article's own talk page. That's one of the things that they are there for.
I dislike disjointed conversations, where one has to switch between pages as each participant writes.
For past discussions on this page, see the archive.

hi! Blueaster 05:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The User:Carlpeterson spammage

Thanks for putting an end to that mess! Could you close the pending AfD on one of them? DMacks 19:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edit to User talk:Navou

I do appreciate your comments and hope that you will allow me to explain my reasoning. My recommendation was just that, only a recommendation. My recommendation clearly did not reach consensus, so no harm done, right? I stated what "appeared" to be an applicable principle and asked if this could be included into another project instead. I might change my recommendation to keep after seeing some debate, and seeing that I might be wrong about the guiding policy, or about the article.

The nominator stated "I humbly ask that the nomination just be ended now." so I closed the AFD as nom withdrawn and keep. I was the only dissent, and I withdrew my recommendation.

Also your text on my talk page appears a little presumptuous and cross, as I did put a little thought into 'What can I do to improve this article" I came up with nothing. Forgive me if I am mis-interpreting your comment. I am very familiar with the process and policy.

You are however correct about one thing, I did not look at the articles age. I'm human. Please in the future help me to improve rather than use comments like "You clearly did not..." Instead "Did you look for sources or try to expand..." might have come across better. You and I have a common goal, we both want to see Misplaced Pages succeed. I hold this project in high esteem, as I am sure you do. Just word your stuff different, if possible. ;P Navou 23:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Bum Fuck, Egypt

Counting Google hits is not research. One has to actually read the things that the search locates.

  • And what indication do you have that I didn't? The last listed item should have been a tiny hint. Or is the above your "Google hits" macro that you click on automatically every time you read the word "Google"? --Calton | Talk 02:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I have the very words that you wrote as an indication: "21 hits in Google Books" "24 in Google Blogs". You're counting hits right there, without a mention of what those hits actually are. Uncle G 11:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Svenska in other languages

In Misplaced Pages:Notability, if you look at the "in other languages" bar, you'll see about 6 links to the sweedish language page that links you here, it began with your edit, I don't know how it got in there, and I don't see any visible code in the source that links to that page. What shall we do? I already made a comment on it on the notability talk page. Thanks RiseRobotRise 08:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

      • ah yes, I realized that a few hours later. I was going to replace it with the note or ref tags, but didn't have the time. Anyways, I wasn't able to edit the page seeing hour administrators are the only ones who are allowed to edit that page. Well I'm glad that issue is resolved, and we don't have to worry about that anymore. Thanks RiseRobotRise 00:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Meta's template breaking on en:wikipedia's help-page mirrors.

Hi Uncle_G,

Templates such as m:Template:For & m:Template:tt (from Meta) are broken on the pages that are mirrored at w:Help:Template & w:Help:Advanced_templates and probably at other places too. For instance:

  • {{for|call=t2|pc1=2=constant|abc|def|ghi}} incorrectly gives: For abc, see def and ghi.
  • {{tt|t|efg}} incorrectly gives: efg

Both of the above don't work as they should have on Meta (here & here), since the w:Templates were called instead of the m:Templates. This rendered the mirrored tutorial confusing for readers. And since I learned and tried that cross-namespace template referencing, calling m:Templates from w:, is impossible, I propose placing a "soft-redirect" on the w:Help_xxx pages instead of a mirror copy, what do you think? Any other remedy? Godric/ 16:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again,
Sorry, I later noticed 2 notices on the mirrored pages warning about:
  • some template-demos not working on these mirror copies.
  • and notifying user not to edit the pages due to the transwiki-overwriting.
So you knew ahead that these 2 scenarios will likely be happening and they did: (editors contributed stuff that will be overwritten next)
  • and it also mass-transwikied the "Help: pages" from meta: to wikipedia:. (here)
Then,
  • What is the rationale of keeping 2 copies of the same content?
  • And given that template-demos do break in the mirrored pages & editors do lose their contributions upon overwriting, then what rationale actually sustains the "rationale of keeping 2 copies of the same content"?
  • Finally, would you mind to instruct your bot to do "softredirect" instead of mirror-copying in order to solve the above problems by keeping only 1 page of content in 1 place?
Thanks for your attention,
Godric/ 17:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The system of having the master pages at Meta that are then copied here was created by other editors. I just do the copying from time to time. As for the templates: Go fix the master help pages if the name conflicts concern you. Meta is a wiki, too. Uncle G 17:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your info. Godric/ 18:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for kicking a troll

Thanks for taking care of User:Pontius Ethics and his whiny trolling under the guise of "legal threats." I could have blocked him, but I didn't want to be seen as abusing admin priveleges. Thanks again for your help. --Modemac 14:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Remember when you admonished me to not delete citations?

Now someone is doing this wholesale. I reported it on WP:ANI#71.231.107.188 (talk • contribs). So you see, I can learn  ;-) — Sebastian 02:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Useless, short-term Yahoo News links -- I see no benefit to Misplaced Pages readers by leaving such deadlinks lying around.

I've switched to flagging, FWIW, but two things: I can't explain the discrepancy with the time stamps, but I did stop as soon as I saw the first 'you've got a new message' banner. Also, many, if not most, were bare URLs like "http://news.yahoo.com/photo/061009/481/9310a1bf28d54264b9ed05f6e2f5d359" which contain absolutely no information future editors could possibly use. I see no benefit to Misplaced Pages readers or editors by leaving such deadlinks lying around. 71.231.107.188 20:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd also be interested in the answer to the question asked here. 71.231.107.188 20:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Guide

Just read through the linked guide - very helpful! Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I need clarification on one point though - in the guide it states that "You must not modify or remove the AFD notice". However, as you said the correct tag should be {{cleanup-rewrite}}, am I permitted to modify the notice in this case? Thanks in advance. Superfurrycannibal 23:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Simple route

Ya, I saw it. I just don't see that much effort in hitting the delete button to get rid of the history, so that some random guy won't revert into that and bring the problem back in 2 months. - Bobet 12:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  • You're making a rod for all of our backs. Now we have more editors who think that simple reversion to the prior version of the article, which all of them could have done for themselves, has to go through AFD and requires an administrator to be involved in the process. Uncle G 12:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Boubli

I see you've speedy deleted the above article which is appearing on AfD, is there any chance you can close it for me? Cheers RyanPostlethwaite 13:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

For your great work fixing articles on AfD and your always-rational leadership in AfD discussions, I, CanadianCaesar, award you this barnstar


Deleting the right articles

I agree. That's why I removed one from the AfD batch because it looked plausible. I personally always leave plausible links too even if they were WP:COI violations but not everyone agrees. --BozMo talk 12:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review to change name

Hi, there is a undelete review to change the name of the Anglophone/Analytic article, see:

Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_17#Analytic.2FAnglophone_and_Continental_Philosophy

regards, Lucas 17:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox

A few extra eyes ont hat one now, thankfully. I think SB is a decent editor but given to strong opinions. Guy (Help!) 23:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This is very true (nice essay). I came too close to violating 3RR today in trying to maintain the integrity of articles that SqueakBox and another editor are attempting to derail because they choose to characterize the articles as "racist" and therefore they are automatically PoV violations. I refuse to be dragged into bad editing and refuse to continually be characterized as racist or a defender of racism or a fringe lunatic just because the other person refuses to read correctly or accept what they are reading or discuss a compromise or even acknowledge the basics of what's being discussed. Sorry, Uncle G. I may return to see what the state of the article is later, but for now I have given up on stabilizing or improving the article on the term Brown people. Good luck. ju66l3r 00:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I have run out of patience with this user as they continue to unwarrantedly mischaracterize my efforts (and your's) as "racist", "OR", and "trolling". After a threat of admin action on my talk page and finally another comment on the article talk page that they will crusade against my editing efforts on the article (and your's), I have simply run out of patience. I began a ArbCom enforcement for their "personal attack and unwarranted assumptions of bad faith" parole which is only halfway through. I just felt that you should know since you are somewhat involved. ju66l3r 22:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

And another thing...

The tireless contributor barnstar
If there were such a thing as a canonical definition of "tireless contributor", then Uncle G would be that editor. The man who takes "sofixit" and makes it so. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Silly, silly monkey

Thanks for the :-) I'd love to be able to put a "Silly Monkey" Graphic into some of those absolutely nonsensical AfD's (especially the massively lame sock puppeteers! Maybe I'll recruit an artistic-type friend to come up with the "Chewbacca Defense Barnstar" for massively lame & long-winded debaters (would look good on some Discussion pages too!!) SkierRMH 09:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


Nice going on paper cup

Thanks for the work. It might be even better if you did a merger with Dixie cup--Wehwalt 20:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Of all the people that understand Misplaced Pages, you are probably my best resource for my question.

Why are individual video games considered to be "encyclopedic"?

I'm having a bit of trouble, wrapping my Wiktionary brain around that concept. AFAIK, no other encyclopedia has entries like that. Certainly not listed as "Featured Articles" or otherwise advertised as hallmark entries. So, what gives? Is it a concerted troll effort to make Misplaced Pages look astronomically worthless? (If you can answer my question, of course, then I'll ask the same about Pokemon.)

TIA. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 09:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

For more, see User:Uncle G/On sources and content, User:Uncle G/On notability, Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not, and Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary.

The question assumes a falsehood as its premise. Individual video games are not necessarily encyclopaedic. Some are. Some are not. Facts about video games belong here if they are verifiable from good sources. Whether a game warrants an individual article in its own right, or merely the inclusion of the verifiable facts within a larger context, is determined by whether it is notable. If there is no verifiable information at all about a video game, then it doesn't belong here, in any form. (Misplaced Pages isn't a free hosting service for video game authors to publish their documentation on, nor is it a publisher of first instance for documenting games that haven't been documented already.) If there's only ever going to be a single verifiable fact about a video game, then it doesn't warrant an entire article all to itself.

To explain Misplaced Pages in Wiktionarian terms: Think of Misplaced Pages as being descriptivist. We aren't here to create or to change human knowledge. We are here to document it as it is. Therefore what belongs here is determined by what the world at large has chosen to document. If you look at Bulbasaur#Notes and references you'll see that the world at large has chosen to document Bulbasaur, on web pages and in books. Therefore it is appropriate for Misplaced Pages.

Human knowledge is uneven, unfair, and incomplete. Things that one may consider "worthy" are often completely undocumented; and things that one may consider to be "worthless" may be documented in extensive detail. Misplaced Pages isn't here to right that perceived wrong. (The way to right that wrong is, of course, to persuade the world to write more stuff about the "worthy" subjects, or to pull one's finger out and to write books and articles about the "worthy" stuff onesself. But neither of those involve Misplaced Pages in any way.)

One further thing that perhaps should be included in any "Misplaced Pages for Wiktionarians" guide is this: One thing that we can do at Wiktionary but not at Misplaced Pages is Recognize New Stuff. Wiktionarians can, with enough solid and checkable quotations to hand, demonstrate the widespread use of new words, or of old words in new ways, and adduce and document their meanings. The Misplaced Pages:No original research policy prevents doing such primary research here at Misplaced Pages.

This has some bearing on your question. One easy answer to the question "Why does Misplaced Pages include films/video games/television programmes?" is "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia. It should cover fields that one finds covered in other encyclopaedias. What do you expect to find when you look in an encyclopaedia of films/video games/television programmes?". There is a caveat to that. In some encyclopaedias one will find the results of primary research done by the author of the encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages can use such research if it has already been done, fact checked, reviewed, and published outside of Misplaced Pages. But, unlike those books, Misplaced Pages isn't the place for such primary research to actually be done directly. Uncle G 20:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you. Perhaps I should rephrase my question then. Do you have any idea why the Misplaced Pages "Featured Articles" often feature items that one would never find in a traditional encyclopedia? Personally, I've never seen a "Gaming Encyclopedia" nor a "Pokemon Encyclopedia", but I'll take your word on it, that such things do exist. (And yes, your explanation above was quite helpful.) --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 21:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • What is a featured article depends in large part from both who is willing to work on it in the first place and what editors decide they wish to feature. Featuring things that paper encyclopaedias would not does have a certain cachet with Misplaced Pages editors. For details, though, I suggest reading the present and past discussions at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates and talking to those who are heavily involved in the process. I'm more usually working at the opposite end of the article spectrum, where the articles have far to go before reaching featured article status. Uncle G 21:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if our paths have crossed before, but I was directed here by the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy). I just wanted to compliment you on your exceptionally clear reply, Uncle G. Perhaps it should be on a policy page somewhere... -- ALoan (Talk) 21:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Seconded. I always find Uncle G's explanations to be of the highest quality. Carcharoth 02:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

As a side-note here, encyclopedias can indeed vary greatly in scope, size, format and reliability. Encyclopedia Britannica, Encarta, The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, Encyclopedia Dramatica, Encyclopedia Galactica, Misplaced Pages, etc. Regarding fictional topics being covered by specialist encyclopedias, I suspect the evolutionary process begins with 'Guides', for example The Complete Guide to Middle-earth, and the online 'Encyclopedia of Arda', and the 'Star Trek Encyclopedia', and various 'Companion...' books. The vast majority of these are in-universe stuff that many don't see as truly encyclopedic (and I would tend to agree). But then you have items like the J. R. R. Tolkien Encyclopedia, which is a collection of scholarly essays and literary criticism. Some bits are truly encyclopedic, and some aren't. But these uses of the term encyclopedia clearly show that you have to define what you mean when you say 'encyclopedic'. Carcharoth 02:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning fi:Misplaced Pages:Hiekkalaatikko

Could you reset also the Finnish Sandbox by your SANDBOT? Some times vandals remove the header template. {{subst:Hiekka}} resets the sandbox. —Iirolaiho 17:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Space warfare in fiction

An editor has nominated Space warfare in fiction, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Space warfare in fiction (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 17:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:BIO

Hey Uncle G, you took out the old "One day's events count as one coverage" back here, and I've been quoting it lately only to see that it's not in the guideline anymore. Is there any reason it shouldn't be? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Don't edit war over a speedy deletion tag when you are misapplying it. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion carefully and understand the cases that they are addressing. The author's request criterion is there for cases where someone accidentally creates something in the wrong place or that xe shouldn't have created, and requires administrator intervention in order to rectify that mistake. It does not apply to articles which have been edited by at least three different accounts and several IP addresses, and which were not created by mistake. Uncle G 09:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, that was 11 hours ago, so I am obviously not going to change it back. Your ex post facto warning is completely worthless. If you had bothered reading the history of this "edit war", you would see that I quote a speedy deletion criterion in an edit summary. You are just repeating what someone else has already said to make your self feel important. John Reaves (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • As I have already explained once, what you wrote in your edit summary did not apply, as you would have seen from looking at the article's edit history. Once again: Please read our criteria for speedy deletion carefully and understand the cases that they are addressing. Uncle G 17:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Just find something better to do than issue needless warnings hours too late. (Also, any replies should go on my talk page since that where you started this.) John Reaves (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
      • There clearly is a need to point you in the direction of our speedy deletion criteria. You tagged an article under a criterion that didn't apply to it. When you have read our criteria for speedy deletion carefully, please then read Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines#Technical and format standards to learn that there are other ways of writing conversations on talk pages that differ from the disjointed one that you yourself favour. Uncle G 20:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm not going to reread those pages. As you clearly haven't seen, I didn't add it, I reverted it. I see that you haven't "warned" the original tagger. I know that that some people people prefer annoying conversations that involve watchlisting, I don't. Most people have what's known as common courtesy and will abide by other users wishes. Let me direct you to m:Don't be a dick. John Reaves (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
          • That you added the tag to the article after Shyam Bihari pointed out that the criterion didn't apply is exactly why I pointed you at our criteria for speedy deletion. It was you that erroneously disputed the quite correct removal of the tag, not anyone else. It is you, and not anyone else, that thus needs to be pointed in the direction of the speedy deletion criteria and told what that criterion is actually for. For the third time: Please read our criteria for speedy deletion carefully and understand the cases that they are addressing.

            By the way: Talking about common courtesy whilst at the same time calling other editors "self important" and "dicks" is almost as ironic as talking about abiding by other users' wishes whilst at the same time telling other editors to employ one's own style of conversation, contrary to those other editors' expressed wishes. Uncle G 22:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I suppose that now that it has been established just how full of yourself you are, I will try to ignore you and your blind faith in policy. John Reaves (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I was jerk. I'm really sorry about this exchange. I have no idea why I was so argumentative. Once again, sorry. John Reaves (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

O, not ability again...

Draft revision, based on your version and lengthy recent discussions at WT:N:

User:Trialsanderrors/On_notability

Would be nice if you can give it a look. ~ trialsanderrors 06:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Chip-india

I saw you weigh in on the redirect revert war occuring in the above captioned article. The block, I think, is a good idea until someone can prove the magazines merged or assimilated. However, the block will only effect one of the users making changes. The other, User:Wikiga, will not be effected. Is my understanding correct? --Silverhand 17:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
For your incredible work in creating, writing, and sourcing the new Space warfare in fiction page, I, S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 , hereby award you this Original Barnstar. Keep up the good work! --S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It was meant in part to be an example of how to go about writing such articles properly. All of the content that I wrote was based upon secondary source analyses of science fiction that had been already written and published by a science fiction critic, historian, or writer. Take heed. There's a lesson to be learned from how different Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Space warfare in fiction is to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Space warfare in fiction (2nd nomination). There's also a lesson to be learned from the stark contrast between the sources that you cited and the sources that I cited. Doing our own analyses of science fiction writing (or, indeed, any fiction writing) is, per the Misplaced Pages:No original research policy, not what Misplaced Pages is for. We don't write our own analyses and then cite the work of fiction itself as the source. But we can cover topics that critics and historians of such fiction have already analysed, and written about in "history of science fiction" books (and so forth), as long as we stick to their analyses and don't introduce our own. I suggest that you go and hunt up some books about the history of science fiction on television and in the cinema, and modify your content so that it is based solidly upon their analyses of fictional space warefare on television and in the cinema; and remove anything that is your own analysis that you have made and based directly on the contents of a television programme or film. Uncle G 22:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

PMs on Wiki

I call them PMs for lack of a better term. I know there are no PMs on Wiki, but when I am typing, I put down PMs and people seem to know what I am talking about. I could but "message on my talk page", but "PM" takes up less room:). - SVRTVDude 23:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Restoration

As a fairly new user of Misplaced Pages, I would like to know why the Spider's Web redirect page was replaced. This is so I can understand why this happened and whether I should leave it alone for once and for all. Totalinarian 19:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC) PS. I have put it up for deletion again; please use the link in this section to add your opinions or remove it if you wish.

WikiBooks: Catullus

Thank you for pointing that out. I have gone back and learnt the code now, so in future all the vocab lists will be tagged to WikTionary.

Here is a sample:

Catullus 70

I feel however that the vocab lists should remain in the poems, because of the unclear usage of some words - so as to provide a more-rounded understanding of the text, by giving more suggestions. And I have no qualms about writing it out either. It's nice to see that my work is being appreciated. :D Alakazam138 13:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. There are times when the vocab and the meaning can interlink - the vocab could mean one thing and the text could mean another. For example the word flamma usually means flame, and that much would be obvious to any reader. Of course in romantic poetry there isnt much talk of physical flame, and so it has come to mean tingle, passion, desire and so on. I will however start finding some model WikTionary articles on Latin entries, and copy their style when inputting the vocab. That way, any further information, solely on the language will be available, with the literary connotations in the appropriate WikiBooks passage. If you have any further suggestions, on how I could improve, feel free to ask - your user page indicates that you have a lot of know-how about many different aspects of the Wiki- label. Alakazam138 14:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have replied to your comment

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lurker Jerry lavoie 19:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies)

Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies)

It has been proposed that the following criteria be removed from this guideline: 1. The commercial organization is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications.3 2. The commercial organization's share price is used to calculate one or more of the major managed stock market indices.4 Note this is not the same as simply being listed on a stock market. Nor is it the same as being included in an index that comprises the entire market. The broader or the more specialized the index, the less notability it establishes for the company.

We are close to evaluating consensus, please join with us in the discussion. --Kevin Murray 04:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Brown people

There is a new discussion on whether this article has an unencyclopedic nature that I would like to hear your opinion on. Thanks. ju66l3r 22:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Uncle G's 'bot

Hi, I do some editing on wikipedia an also on

Brian Peppers

Since I dislike editing archived discussions, I'll respond here. Yes, administrators should coordinate and decide what to do to avoid a wheel war. However (and maybe I was misinterpreting here), it was looking like several admins were supporting the idea that the article should simply be kept deleted. Had this continued and then been implemented, it would have gone beyond admins discussing how they use the tools, and on to them making deletion decisions without consulting the community (if you follow me). In short, I feel admin discussions should have focused on how to handle a wider debate, and not gone into the merits (or otherwise) of the article. Regards. Trebor 23:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Catullus

Getting on nicely with the Catullus... plodding along you know. A question I have:

Is there anyway to 'advertise' for helpers in a particular project? Whilst I enjoy doing it, I have been working solo for the past 2 weeks. There's a lot that needs to be done to get it to a finished WikiBook standard. Thanks in advance. Alakazam138 17:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Fair play, you may have given it prominence in November 2006, but I added the fact that it existed across most guidelines in September 2006. I just didn't give it a section header or make it prominent. Deliberately. Steve block Talk webcomic warrior 19:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Along these same lines, I'd love to get your input on the proposed changes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

removal of prods

I see you replaced the prods with original research tags. The reason I put these prod tags on is because the articles are not capable of not being original research-- ie, they are unencyclopedic. Could you discuss at the talk pages why you disagree? Thanks, --Urthogie 04:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"What links here" counter

Hello Uncle G, I was wondering if you were aware of any tool that allows one to get a relatively quick count of the number of "What links here" links a given page has? Thanks in advance for a response. (→Netscott) 05:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I've never encountered one. You could ask one of the people with Toolserver accounts to write one. Uncle G 10:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • If it's a remotely reasonable number, copy the URL of the 500 link of the Whatlinkshere page, change the limit to 5000 (the maximum that MediaWiki will accept), yielding a url similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/User_talk:Uncle_G&limit=5000&from=0. Paste the result into a text editor like emacs that displays line number and trim away the header and footer. (If the number isn't remotely reasonable, you can play around with the from= parameter.)

      Failing that, my bot has a function that fetches a list of all pages in a given page's whatlinkshere list that I suppose I could split out and clean up. I don't recall offhand how independent it is from the rest of the script, but it shouldn't be terribly difficult to turn it into a stand-alone. —Cryptic 11:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Narnia

It's stubby, but you certainly have got a point. Seeing as the reasoning isn't valid any longer, feel free to undo my redirect. If anyone asks, you can point them to this post. - Mgm| 22:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

request for help explaining the difference between a redirect and a deletion

Good evening, Uncle G. I am having a terrible time explaining to a user that turning a page into a redirect is not the same as a deletion, that redirects to not require AFD decisions and that AFD decisions do not preclude the possibility of turning a page into a redirect in the future. Could I impose on you to perhaps see if you can explain the issue better? I can't seem to get the point across clearly. The conversation is at Talk:Bee's knees. Thanks in advance. Rossami (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Xe hasn't replied to you, yet. I'm going to hold off to see what xyr reply, if any, is, first. I have already discussed this article with that very same editor in the AFD discussion, note. Uncle G 14:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


Misplaced Pages:Notability

Hi Uncle G. You added the statement "Notable here is used in its adjectival sense of "worthy of being noted" to WP:N. In my view, this is the best characterization of Misplaced Pages:Notability. However, I think it may help to clarify that statement even further. Some Misplaced Pages editors may read that statement and think the issue is whether the topic is worthy of being noted in Misplaced Pages. However, the issues is whether the source material thinks the topic is worthy of being noted in thier publications. Misplaced Pages editor's involvement is to determine whether the collective source material has demonstrates that the topic has been noted to the point where the collective source material demonstrates that the topic is worthy for their collective publications. If the collective source material demonstrates that the topic is worthy for their collective publications, then Misplaced Pages consensus should be that the source material the topic is worthy to be in Misplaced Pages. Thoughts? -- Jreferee 23:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Lists of palindromic phrases

Could I bother you to take a look at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 25#Lists of palindromes? My experience with Wiktionary is sparse and out of date, and a better-informed opinion of whether these should be transwikied would be welcome. —Cryptic 12:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL

Didn't agree with you about this one. sorry.DGG 00:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  • There's no need to apologize for disagreeing. I was seeking a legitmate third opinion from an uninvolved editor, not a rubber stamp for my own arguments. ☺ Uncle G 15:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability guidelines

There's another one of those discussions about deprecating the term "notability", at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability/overview. I thought you might want to know. >Radiant< 09:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Barnstar of Diligence
For bringing exceptional rationality and clarity of thought to often irrational debates, I award Uncle G the Barnstar of Diligence. Seraphimblade 11:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Change at People

I ask that you revert your last change at People since it that is now inconsistent with the current version of WP:N. I think that the subordinate critera should include a template with common restatement of the Primary Criterion if it needs to be restated at all, but that's a topic for another day. I support your right to disagree as long as consitency is maintained among the permutations from WP:N. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 23:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Misplaced Pages. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 22:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Availability

I'm creating this as a proposal to clean things up with all the misunderstandings that surround notability as applied in wikipedia, and figured since you wrote one of the great tomes on the topic you might want to weigh in. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Replacing WP:N

Since you were one of the inspirations for the page, I figured I should let you know personally that I'm working on a replacement page that's getting some decent discussion at Misplaced Pages:Article inclusion. Take a look at that and the discussion here and provide any input you're capable of. Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy criteria

Thanks for picking me up on that. Always pleased to improve my policy knowledge - hadn't noticed that before (not that I often spot repost material). I've amended my tag to A7. --Dweller 17:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem with m:Help:Transwiki

Hi, I'm mentioning this to you as you have some experience with this subject. The m:Help:Transwiki page appears to be rather broken. The example given at the bottom of the page, as to how to transwiki from the english to the french wikipedia, no longer would work. This is because the French wikipedia, as well as, from what I can tell, all the other non-english wikipedias, no longer appears to use a transwiki log. If it does, I can't find it, even by using google's translation feature (I don't speak any other languages). Looking for Transwiki in the german, spanish, etc. wikipedias yields nothing. The french wikipedia has Transwiki linking to fr:Special:Log/Import, where of course nothing can be entered. If transwikiing is to be done between wikipedias of different languages, what is to be the procedure now? --Xyzzyplugh 07:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Contributions

The Original Barnstar
In recognition of your massive contributions to numerous Wikimedia projects, and in particular for completely rewriting Newspaper riddle, ... have a barnstar. Many thanks, Black Falcon 08:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)