Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:55, 2 November 2005

Article Linux distribution feedback

I'm afraid I had to do the same thing with Linux distribution. I'm sure you mean well, but when 9 out of 10 of your changes make an article worse than it was before, perhaps working on existing, well-established articles is not a good idea until your English improves.

However, there are still ways you can contribute to Misplaced Pages. You could research and create new articles which do not yet exist or which have almost no content. Here is a list of sub-stubs -- articles that are not much more than dictionary definitions. And here is a list of wanted pages which have links pointing to them but do not exist.

Of course, before creating or expanding one of these pages, check that another page with about the same thing but with a different name does not already exist, and if it does, create a redirect instead. And if creating a new page, make sure that it is worth creating, and investigate the pages that link to it to see the context in which the page is mentioned.

– Smyth\ 12:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm a new wikipedian, however I should note that MOST articles are poorly written.

1-Read the discussion page on Linux Distribution 2-Revise the page you reverted again 3-Revise it again and read it outloud 4-Get back to me and apologize

You really are not reading the article carefully like every good wikipedian should. For a fact, THERE IS NOT GNU OPERATING SYSTEM. For another fact, an application RESIDES on an OPERATING SYSTEM.

Here's even an excerpt right here to clarify things more switfly, no offense - you really don't understand enough to edit this article.

"A Linux distribution or GNU/Linux distribution (or a distro) is a Unix-like operating system plus application software comprising the Linux kernel, the GNU operating system, assorted free software and sometimes proprietary software, all created by individuals, groups or organizations from around the world."

Taking this segment "is a Unix-like operating system plus application software" suggests that an "xxx operating system plus application software" are not referring to the same question as "What is the Operating System"? because "application software" is also derived from GNU developers. Now if you don't grasp to understand what I just said, then it can be explained by the fact that Operating Systems are terms used to define the set of another Operating System contained within it; now does that yet make any sense? No, I didn't think so. And if you just said no, then maybe you have at least 1 brain cell still alive.

Now bringing your fattied American brain away from the tv and try pulling a few more braincells back to life, you have the possibility of realizing that the previous paragraph is quoting that xxx Operating System is containing another within itself. Now go back to the article and read the entirety the way I left it and then speak. But before you do read the following.

Having used Linux for 5 Years I mention that ALIEN is EVIL. There should be no Inter-Crap Section..This is totally irrelevant to the case that anyone at all whatsoever has a good reason not to RTFM like he should so he shouldn't have to break his system. What is the relevancy then? That there should be no recommendation to something which isn't good in the first place? Well stupid! that's what the reverted changes you made suggests..That just tells you just how much tv you've been watching. Alien is known to be BAD and I also have judged it from my own experience- not only me but many other experts as well coming from debian circles. Of course Articles I write are professional indeed, and there are probably 1 per 30,000 articles on Misplaced Pages that I would class as professionally crafted..and not from American writers, that's for sure!

You will not read the article like a Canadian would.. American. You big chunk of fatass nimslim braincell tv-culture society are possibly the worst english writers I've ever seen on the face of this planet..You're all fat, dumb and lazy and don't even know how to write even the simplest forms of definitions for what any Operating System actually means..because you can't think and only think about killing the world world and having on display your dirty Entertainment Retardness of genital camera-lens slaping laughing comedy all year-round- something that is all what you folks down there take for the main source of intellectual classes for improvising your literary art! Now go watch you're fun killing innocent people around the world and your Entertainment TV along with your potatoe chips! and try reading the article again you lard..It's no wonder that even people I know in University shy away from the english wikipedia.org..You're simply put, Americans- a whole dam nation who don't know how to read, write nor even understand what the fuck they have even actually written.. You folks shouldn't even deserve to have access to Misplaced Pages.org, you're all shit cummingload of retards in comparison to say, well not only us Canadians, but to the rest of the world. Time to say "Go home Yankee" or Come to this country and denounce your international war-crimes- perhaps if you do you're mind may come back to life away from your perversive past of American atrocities exercised all over the dam world. The least you lards can do is say you're "sorry" and accept the fact that tv is destroying your ability to actually read and write like an average world-wide English literate can. Americans..hmmphmm, they scale more physically than they do mentally..not surprised..and then they don't understand the rest of the world because they're not able to think anymore..hmmphmm..I will turn on my tv when I hear about another 911 and shoudn't surprised either..you all deserve it for the international war crimes you've been committing..and don't even read alternate sources about it on the net and are all rather brain-washed with your Shit national news which never admits half the truth anyways..May you all burn in hell!

1. I have no problems with the factual content of what you wrote, just that your English was so bad that it overwhelmed any factual improvements that you might have made.
2. I'm Scottish.

– Smyth\ 15:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gender of IEC cord

I think we're in disagreement on a point relating to the gender of the equipment (ie monitor etc) end of the IEC power cord. By your recent addition to Gender of connectors and fasteners I take it that you consider both ends to be male. I quite firmly believe that the monitor end is female, based on the current-carrying contacts being recessed, despite the overall fitting being meant to slide into a recess. This would be consistent with the paragraph "The gender of a connector is determined by the structure of its primary functional components...". Now, I wrote that paragraph, so I'm citing it not as independent authority, but as content that stands in conflict. If you can point me to an authoritative source which considers the monitor end to be male, please do so. (If this is the case then other parts of the article will need to be revised.)

I am willing to grant that here is a case of the female end being considered a plug, at least in some literature. This would also warrant revision of other parts of the article.

Sharkford 15:21, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

You may well be right. I only made the change because the previous wording seemed to rather clumsily imply that both ends were entirely male. Feel free to make any changes you want. – Smyth\ 15:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Java AP Exam

Exactly why is the fact that an AP exam is given in Java un-notable? -CunningLinguist 03:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

The fact itself isn't un-notable, but as an isolated reference dropped into the middle of discussion of the language itself, it was out of place. It would be more appropriate to have a section called, say, "Education", which discusses the general trend in education all over the world to change from Pascal/C/C++ to Java, and cites the AP exam as an example. – Smyth\ 10:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

8 = 1/8th

ok now i'm confused... i think you are right. but i can't think of this clearly anymore.  :-) see Talk:Kilobit_per_second - Omegatron 14:11, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

Hi Malcolm, it's unlocked now. Cheers, SlimVirgin 14:04, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hemp

he article contains many verifiable facts, but that doesn't mean it's not a ridiculous rant. Certainly hemp is a very versatile plant, and there was a lot of misinformation being circulated around the time it was banned. Indeed, a lot of the things mentioned in the article are also covered in Marijuana#History. But it's not magic, it won't singleplantedly solve world hunger, or replace crude oil, and for God's sake it's not extraterrestrial. Having this article cited as a reference does the encyclopedia no favors at all. – Smyth\talk 30 June 2005 21:12 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose it's a little over the top near the end... maybe let's replace it with the "alt.hemp.faq" instead? --Thoric 30 June 2005 21:42 (UTC)

Northern Mockingbird

Thanks for the reversion, seems a strange choice of bird to target! jimfbleak 9 July 2005 13:48 (UTC)

Question

I was thinking about our recent discussion on Talk:Terrorism.

Would you perhaps be interested in working with me to identify and nominate for simultaneous deletion all of the Insert Adjective Here Terrorism articles? It's difficult for me to imagine any of these articles being accorded an entry in The Columbia Encyclopedia or any similarly reputable publication. Current news events will likely increase partisan chaos on all or nearly all of these pages, increase vandalism, and make them even less useful than they already are, which is saying something.

What do you think? BrandonYusufToropov 14:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea. Let me look at those articles (I've always tended to avoid them in the past) and I'll answer properly tomorrow. – Smyth\ 21:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Having looked at them, it seems that their content is fairly unobjectionable. Zionist terrorism and Palestinian terrorism, in particular, both use the word "militant" throughout. Perhaps a better solution would be to push for a "terrorism" → "militancy" renaming? See Category:Terrorism, and especially Category:Terrorists, which has a definition of its own but virtually no members, and its talk page, where it was nominated for deletion. – Smyth\ 21:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Militancy actually says something, whereas "terrorism" is the "no YOU are" word of the moment. This seems like much the better approach. BrandonYusufToropov 23:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

WP:RM

I have made some format changes to your entry on WP:RM. Please read the guidelines on WP:RM

• What to do on the talk page
• What to do on this Requested moves page

to make sure that all the steps needed for a requested move have been completed. Philip Baird Shearer 18:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

applications indeed have not criteria

check out my newest version. Kzzl 20:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Vanunu

I was content to have "abduction", ideally with the Wiktionary definition Wiktionary:abduct. The reason for my last edit was that someone was trying to remove all reference to the illegality of what happened, even that it happened at all! But yes, the compromise is somewhere in the middle. --Red King 17:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism

Terrorism

User:Zephram Stark contends that he has achieved consensus for his new version of the introduction, because, in his view, he introduced it to the Talk: page 3 days ago, and "no-one objected". He's now insisting that he can insert it, and any changes to the introduction must be approved in Talk: with him first. I have pointed out that he inserted his new intro into the middle of a huge Talk: page, and that I didn't even notice it until he edited the article to insert it. I've also pointed out that it is full of neologisms and other original research, which is forbidden by Misplaced Pages policy, and have at least removed that. Did you, in fact, agree to this new introduction? Could you comment further at Talk:Terrorism? Jayjg 20:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Vanunu

(moved to Talk:Mordechai Vanunu)

User:Go Cowboys

Thank you for your concern. However, my user page was mentioned on Misplaced Pages:Help desk#Experienced user, so why can't I find out how to do things? as an example of how some users create their own "Tool" page, or a collection of tools on their user page. So assume good faith concerning those edits to that page. But of course, that user cannot hide from his/her contributions... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

RfArb against Zephram Stark

I've requested arbitration against Zephram Stark. Please add any details or comments you feel are appropriate. Carbonite | Talk 19:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

New Engineering Wiki

Engineering Wiki is a wiki entirely dedicated to collecting information about Engineering. I invite you to join this wiki.

Zephram

Hi, Fred Bauder has drafted a finding of fact describing the focus of the dispute in the Zephram Stark arbitration case, and has added it to the proposed-decision page at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Proposed_decision#Focus_of_dispute, where it is currently being voted on. It says:

"The focus of this dispute is the article terrorism which according to Zephram Stark deteriorated due to the aggressive editing and other actions of Jayjg and SlimVirgin. He has waged a campaign to restore what he considers an adequate article, free of the complex ambiguities introduced by his opponents, see Talk:Terrorism/Archive_6#NPOV_solutions and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Evidence#ZS.27s_changes_to_Terrorism."

I feel this is not an accurate way to summarize the dispute. Would you mind taking a look, please, and perhaps commenting on it? The discussion is taking place at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Workshop#Focus_of_dispute. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 20:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)