Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:54, 24 June 2007

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

Template loop detected: Template:Archives

MA Userbox

Today, there was a merger of Category:Martial Artist Wikipedians into Category:Wikipedian martial artists. This resulted in a userbox {{User:TonyTheTiger/Userboxes/Martialartist}} being added to the category. This userbox is available to you. TonyTheTiger 21:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Roedy Green

Regarding you changing of the web addresses: I could not access any of the pages that you had in your edit. So I reverted it to the version that has legimate links. As for the removal of the controversial material: I agree totally. Until that info is given a source, I think it should stay off. Cynrin 17:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Right; i was about to apologize on your talk page. :) I just saw the last few days' vandalism now, and incorrectly thought i was restoring the right version. Thanks! --Piet Delport 17:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Daniel Bernstein.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Daniel Bernstein.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 04:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems the photo was replaced without comment; the replacement was then removed as lacking a fair use case. I've restored the original photo, for now. --Piet Delport 09:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Amazon Web Services logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Amazon Web Services logo.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog) 16:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The image summary already explains that it's the article subject's logo, as per the fair use rationale guideline. What else can be said? --Piet Delport 12:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: i've extended the question to Media copyright questions. --Piet Delport 13:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Iron Savior (album)

Hello, I was adding fair use rationales to album cover images when I was blocked and told I couldn't do that because the article about the album had to specifically mention the album cover's artwork. I went and put in mentions of the artwork in some of the articles, like Iron Savior (album), but you removed it as POV, which apparently may lead to the deletion of the image (which I think is ridiculous and unnecessary). --Strangerer (Talk) 01:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Who told you this? :) I'm pretty sure it's a mistake: you don't need to comment on the album cover if it's used as part of identifying the subject of the article. --Piet Delport 07:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

inconsistent removal of dab page "see also" sections

What's up with your inconsistency (hypocracy) in deleting "see also" sections from dab pages? This edit to Vampire (disambiguation) shows you leaving in the links to Vamp (a root word of "vampire") yet on other pages, like Inner space and Outer space (disambiguation), you remove the links to the basic words of inner and outer (which I have since restored). Why? These aid in dab page navigation. Please don't remove them! ∞Σɛ_Þ² 13:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Your addition was inconsistent: Vamp is a plausible destination for "Vampire"; Inner and Outer are not plausible destinations for "Inner space" and "Outer space".

This is how disambiguation works on Misplaced Pages. If you don't like it, work constructively towards changing it: please do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. --Piet Delport 14:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, are you seriously unable to comprehend how one can get "inner space" from "inner"? Yet you (or others--who knows now since you're all the same incessant gang) seem to think Im and Pact don't deserve to be linked to on Impact (in its "See also" section). More inconsistent, contradictory hypocracy... Hard to "work constructively towards changing it" when the people involved don't have a clue as to how linguistics works... ∞Σɛ_Þ² 01:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course Im and Pact should not be linked from Impact. You alone are the only person that seems to think it should. --Piet Delport 04:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course why? You have continually failed to provide reasons while I, on the other hand, have provided numerous reasons constantly. <blink> ∞Σɛ_Þ² 06:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The converse is true: your reasons have consistently been revealed baseless, and countered, by a growing crowd of editors impacted by your loose cannon editing.

Your refusal to accept this and move on is causing all this trouble. --Piet Delport 06:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

To tag in on this one; there is an ongoing RfC on Eep that has led to a number of blocks. if you would like to give your comments you are more than welcome to. Thanks -Catneven 16:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

<eyeroll> Typical gang-up-on mentality, as usual... ∞Σɛ_Þ² 01:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's called consensus. Your personal beliefs do not give you license to override everyone else, ignore Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and engage in disruptive editing. --Piet Delport 05:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure they do; it's called ignore all rules and consensus can change. Duh. ∞Σɛ_Þ² 06:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read what "Ignore all rules" does not mean, and Ignore all uses of "ignore all rules".

The IAR policy gives you a license to improve Misplaced Pages, not disrupt it and ignore consensus. --Piet Delport 06:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring over image sizes

I have to admit that your desire to edit war on Thread (computer science) over an image size is...crazy.

Since you want to reference the MoS, here's something for you to chew on:

However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width to enhance the readability or layout of an article. Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include: ...On a lead image that captures the essence of the article.

I certainly contend that "Thread" is much more readable with a larger image and it, doubly, serves as the lead image. I see two compelling reasons to set an image size against your one reason for concern about the antiquated 800x600 resolution. Cburnett 15:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit war? I'm sorry, i assure you that was absolutely not my intention. I was following the guidelines in what appeared to be a routine way.

To me, it makes a lot more sense to rely on users' preferred image sizes: the 300 pixel image seems too large over here, and will surely seem too small on higher resolutions. I can definitely understand picking a specific good size to fit a raster image, but this is a scalable SVG; there should be no reason to prefer a specific fixed resolution.

If you still feel strongly about setting it, though, i won't stop you. --Piet Delport 17:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		In recognition of your help with the mystery page, both in editing and offering solutions, I award you this barnstar. Catneven 13:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated. --Piet Delport 00:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Adventures Unlimited

Why is the addition of these links in the "see also" section "not pertinent" despite such links being "pertinent" on name dabs like John Winston and other "personal name" articles? Hypocrisy... ∞Σɛ_Þ² 00:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

They aren't: you added them to John Winston. --Piet Delport 01:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop

Please desist in your repeated removal of other people's comments from discussions. Uncle G 20:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not removing your comments, i'm undoing your unnecessary and non-standard reformatting of the entire discussion. Please add your comment to the discussion normally. --Piet Delport 20:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You are ill-informed about what is standard. You erroneously think that colons are the one "normal" format. That is wrong. My comment was added perfectly normally, moreover. I suggest that you gain more and wider experience of talk pages and learn more about what wiki markup actually results in. There are many places where asterisks are the norm, as well as good reasons for large discussion pages to use asterisks in preference to colons. Uncle G 01:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not ill-informed about the talk page guidelines: "Normally colons are used, not bullet points". The bullet usage on AfD and other specialized discussions do not extend to general talk page and noticeboard discussions.

With respect to your greater contribution history, this is a lame thing to cause a fuss about. --Piet Delport 10:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

(Context, for the record.) --Piet Delport 20:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Closures

I see you removed my sicp comment on closures. You say there is no reason to single out sicp, but if there are other books that explain implementation of closures, they could be added, why not? Also, the full text of sicp is online, this is in my humble opinion a useful thing to add. I understand your point, but I see no reason to remove an useful bit of information.190.31.67.222 21:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it were to be added, it would belong in the external links section instead of in the main article flow. (However, the current external links section is already in need of trimming: see Misplaced Pages is not a repository of links.). --Piet Delport 22:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I would argue it is a far more important external link that most that there are right now. In fact most of the article could use trimming, there are far too many mentions on closures in every langugage. Maybe, if one wanted to keep this information, a separate article (Closures in various languages) could be added? Anyway, I see no point in not having a SICP mention anywhere in the article. 190.31.234.17 19:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk page redirects

(in reply to User talk:DESiegel#Talk page redirects --Piet Delport)

Yes I do think that redirecting these was a good thing. Strictly speaking they weren't "orphaned" the relevant article pages had been converted into redirects to the newly created dab pages. Therefore i made the talk page redirects follow the article page redirects -- much simpler and cleaner than deleting them. Not a huge matter, and if you want to ask another admin to delete them, i'm not going to raise a fuss, but my feeling is that when an article page winds up converted to a redir, the most normal result is for its talk page to winds up with a matching redir to the corresponding talk page. DES 23:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I meant "orphaned" in the sense of Misplaced Pages:Orphan: the incoming links have been disambiguated.

Generally speaking, there is never a reason redirect a talk page somewhere just because the corresponding article redirects there: moving a (talk) page creates a redirect, but this is only to avoid breaking existing links. Once this motivation is removed (by disambiguating incoming links, and then creating a new redirect) there is no reason to keep the old talk redirect, and definitely no reason to change it as well. (Same as with other explicit redirect pages: their talk pages are content, or redlinks, not matching redirections.) --Piet Delport 01:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, if you don't object, i'll request them again. --Piet Delport 23:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Pinion

Hi Piet:

I notice you changed the disambiguation page for Pinion to say "Flight feather, the outermost primary feathers on a bird's wing". However, this isn't worded correctly. While the article pointed to is indeed flight feather, the term pinion only refers to a handful of those feathers -- out of the dozens each bird has. Is there a problem with leaving the page as it was before the most recent change, with the term "Pinion" pointing to the flight feather article? I checked some other disambiguation pages, and they often show the same term used to point to multiple articles... (I won't change it back until we've agreed on what will work best.) MeegsC | Talk 15:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake; thanks for pointing it out. I made the change mostly in passing, to avoid piping (which is discouraged on disambiguation targets).

I changed the entry to read Pinions, the outermost flight feathers on a bird's wing: i hope that's OK. (I also added an entry for Pinioning, while there.) --Piet Delport 15:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good! I didn't know about piping being discouraged on disambiguation pages, so thanks for correcting that... MeegsC | Talk 16:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the help. :) --Piet Delport 00:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Mystery (disambiguation)

Regarding your reversion, I tried linking to the relevant articles, but you removed them! Then I made a list of mystery-related television shows and it was deleted! Now I made a category for such shows and you remove the link to it and tell me to link to the relevant articles! Uh, hello--contradiction/hypocrisy, anyone?! ∞Σɛ_Þ² 12:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the ambiguity; i meant "add the category link to the relevant articles", instead of to the disambiguation page, (as implied by "not for topical navigation"). --Piet Delport 15:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, if you bothered to actually go to the category you would see the articles already are categorized (the correct term, incidentally) there, obviously. However, the link between that category and making the connection to "mystery" is not established. Do I need to add the category to mystery or will you revert that too? <eyeroll> ∞Σɛ_Þ² 16:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)