Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:57, 9 July 2007

Archives

Archive 1 Mar 15, 2007

Unspecified source for Image:Branta bernicla2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Branta bernicla2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Misplaced Pages:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

On the commons you linked the wrong image. However, the set you linked is free. gren グレン 09:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I fixed the link. Basar 16:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

grading

I've replied at Talk:Unified Soil Classification System. Αργυριου (talk) 00:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Retaining walls

Responded on my page. Cheers. MadMaxDog 10:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Santana

-Johan Santana: Off-hand, how many pitchers, let alone AL pitchers, can you think of that have hit a triple? I apologize for not being the best at writing this stuff, but doesn't that seem to warrant noting? I thought it was quite the feat for a pitcher.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtcupps (talk • contribs)

Thank you for the tip...however

I have never been advised as such by anyone else, including admin. I have a personal style that may not be for everyone. As for the Sacramento page I would worry a little more about the article itself. I had to remove an ad link for a dance studio and then taged it for speedy removal. If editors spent as much time on the Articles as they do critisizing others, we would have much more accurate articles with far less spam. But thank you for taking the time to contact me. Have some cookies.

--Amadscientist 21:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No you weren't wrong. I just don't have alot of time while I am trying to edit and contribute....and to be honest I've had problems with a few editors in the recent past get very harsh and uncivil with me over wikipedia policy...where they were in the wrong. I do try to add summeries when I have time and can think of the appropriet words. I really should have added "More information" at the very least....but it was late and I was on meds and falling asleep at the keyboard.--Amadscientist 22:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Time to delete History section

From what I understand if a section is given it's own page we leave the main article notification for a period then remove it and add to "See Also". Don't you think the page looks odd with a section that isn't even in the article at the top of the page? Perhaps it is time to removes that section as it is empty now. Redirects don't really constitute a section. What do you think? Could use the clean up.--Amadscientist 20:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course, I did not realize that. Thank you for pointing that out. This surely shows my lack of experiance on Wiki. Got it.--Amadscientist 20:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

CalPoly

You must be at SLO.

The battle you have engaged is a bit old, others having taken your position, while yet others oppose. Please see the note on the talk page for the disambiguation page, which I left there but a few minutes ago. William R. Buckley 05:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I bring to your attention another salvo in the popular vs. official naming war; adjustment by an anonymous editor. William R. Buckley 16:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You might have the best plan - leave the small change, rather than revert. I think my point is that many other editors have engaged this bicker (sp?). Your (IIRC) edit was to point out that either school is known as CalPoly. Some editors find this unacceptable. Yet, even the schools have vascillated. Frankly, for such issues, I think that the disambiguation page is a right suitable place to include discussion. Anyway, at least you are apprised. Ciao! William R. Buckley 16:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Baseball Content

I saw your post on the baseball project. I like the template and think it can definitely help with those articles. On a related topic, I have been reading wiki for a loooong time. I am just now editing. You can see my first real contributions here and here. I will say that I find the baseball related content on here to be pretty horrendous. There are tons and tons and tons and tons of bad articles. My biggest complaint is that information is being templated out the "wahzoo" and these templates and lists and see also sections are getting out of hand. I see articles like Frank Robinson and my mind goes nuts. I am so hesitant to talk on that baseball project page after the recent spat that broke out there that was about everything but content. Do you have any suggestions? Long levi 07:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, welcome to the editing community. You did a really good job on your first two articles, especially handling the referencing and template syntaxes. I'm not sure what to do about fixing the baseball section of Misplaced Pages. Those arguments on the project page were rather over the top. The editor who came in and tried to act like a mediator and call for a straw poll did the right thing, so hopefully a consensus is reached and they can edit more important and more enjoyable things. Perhaps baseball, or sports in general, are a little special in that there are so many different ways to looks at records and positions that they lend themselves to an exorbitant amount of templates and lists that other parts of the encyclopedia do not. One way to handle it is to take a deletionist attitude and remove all but the most important things. I do not particularly favor that philosophy and would rather see standards brought forth which promote consistency and coherency between articles, so that editors know exactly what is needed and what is supposed to be included. That may, or may not, help reduce unnecessary templates and see also entries. Like on Frank Robinson, those larger managerial templates are probably redundant with the managerial succession box. Using that show/hide feature also helps. It would be nice if there was more content attention and discussion, but I'm not sure what can be done about that. The more you edit, the more comfortable and confident you'll become when faced with things like project pages and arguments. By the way, I think the last line you put in that image you uploaded should stop the bot, but saying how you got the image might be helpful too. Cheers. Basar 07:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• I hope you don't mind, I copied the text from your post here so the conversation is easier to follow for you. There was an editor who was not the mediator, and I like the attempt to bring order, but they did a pretty poor job. That straw poll was pretty misleading. But i digress. I am frightened from even talking on any of those pages. The people on there just can't get along. I think one problem that wikipedians have in general is that they believe that more content is tantamount to better content. The List of top 500 Major League Baseball home run hitters is a prefect example. It is ridiculously long (to the point that it is not useful). There is a discussion going on where someone defended it by saying it is neat to follow the daily updates. I don't know that wiki is intended for that. I'm all ears. Long levi 03:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, we can keep it on this page if you would like. I must have misunderstood what was happening when I skimmed it; the straw poll seemed like a good idea. You may know more about this stuff than I since I had never seen WP:L or WP:LAUNDRY. I think you are right that Misplaced Pages is not intended for such quickly changing information. Doing so takes a lot of effort on the part of the user and it clogs the page history. If the user who is updating the page leaves, then we just have a bunch of outdated content. Having information that dates less quickly, or not at all, is certainly preferable given the option. Deciding what content should be included in the encyclopedia is hard to define in general terms and also in some specific situations. It is also difficult deleting a person's work if they spent a lot of time adding it to the encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages is also not paper, so it doesn't have the typical confines of a classical encyclopedia. Too much information can make it difficult to find the information you really care about, and some kinds of information are best left to other wiki projects or other sources entirely (perhaps continually updated stats in the middle of a season is best left to espn and mlb who have automatically updating systems). I think you would find that your arguments are more thoughtful and well researched than most people on these pages, especially baseball pages, if you decided to engage in the conversations you care about. After all, it is a wiki guideline to be bold. People have talked about content inclusion philosophies; there are inclusionists as well as deletionists and some people of other philosophies. I don't think there is an easy answer. Basar 05:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oh we can keep this discussion wherever, I just thought it would be easier on you. The straw poll was definitely a good idea, but it was also worded very poorly. According to WP:STRAW, that means it should not be considered. I'm not sure if i'm an inclusioinist or a deletionist. I certainly don't have a problem with good information being included, but all of these templates duplicate information. I don't think this benefits the article. Look at this recent change to Koufax. So now we have 3 stat sites? all of which say essentially the same thing? I agree with you 100% on all of these "updating" stats. People do it because they like contributing, I understand that. But it still doesn't mean that it's an effective way to contribute. I took some time looking at two articles that were mentioned heavily: Brad Ausmus and Jason Marquis. They are in horrible shape. I want to be bold and start "fixing" things...but I am scared that I'll be attacked. I created List of major baseball leagues because i think that people confuse the term "Major League Baseball" (ie - the league) and major league baseball (the level of competition). More work needs to be done to straighten out professional baseball and Major League Baseball. Professional baseball (at least in the USA), starts in the minors as they are paid professionals. I don't want people's opinions to be ignored, but I also feel like there were a lot of reasonable points made that were glossed over because of "hurt feelings". Long levi 08:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)