Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:14, 4 October 2009

No good deed should go unpunished

You were so helpful in helping cool off the Rorschach debate, perhaps you can look at this one about ADHD? There's a few layers there (background reading). –xeno 03:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ode on Indolence

I quoted a section from Gittings on the matter here. As you can see, the language of the text stays true to Gittings. If it is still confusing, I'm going to have to figure out a way to try and explain what the sources are saying even though the sources do not seem to give enough of an explanation. I doubt that merely quoting him instead of paraphrasing would fix the problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to respond on the FAC page because of the potential clutter. I am just confused and wanted a clarification of sorts - The Motion quote - your interpretation seems rather spot on. However, did you want that included into the themes? The section I cite to Motion is about Negative Capability and I cite Gittings for the three figures. Negative Capability appears half way down page 405 in Motion - "Read in the sequence given above, they show a steady evaporation of negative capability. Striving to reconcile opposites, to balance 'thought' with 'sensation', and to explore the relationship between art's power of consolation and life's unavoidable hardships, they demonstrate that force of circumstance was exerting an irresistable pressure on Keats's imagination." This is mentioned along side of Chamber of Maiden Thought (this is a quote directly above the one just quoted) "He had struck the balance he imagined when speaking about negative capability, and also undertaken the journey he had supposed would lead him from the chamber of maiden thought." I think in rewriting and trying to explain the above, it seems to have moved a bit away from the actual pages sourced (but are found elsewhere in the work). Do you think it would just be better to remove all mention of the chamber? It doesn't add anything to understanding the work. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I spent about 20 hours and removed OR and other problems that were inserted during various rewrites. Now it follows the sources. However, one individual wants it to follow everything but the sources, which is a problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to look at the page? Are there any problems left? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear me, yes it does. I can't believe I didn't spot that. >:| Thanks for the clean-up; Ottava would have been a lot more scathing (justifiably so). Steve  11:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha, I like that edit. :) By the way - SlimVirgin - I moved the one "in year" to a secondary position because Karanacs pointed out that I was using it too often in the first position. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Humble request

Hi SV, An editor has added a "like a resume" tag to the Amory Lovins article, and I suppose there is some truth in this. Lovins is an interesting fellow and I wondered if you might have time to expand the article so that it provides a more in-depth biography, rather than just a shopping list of his achievements. There is much useful source material to work with. Any help you could give would be appreciated. Johnfos (talk) 22:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Have expanded this article now, but it still could do with a good copyedit. Johnfos (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Zoo

I have restored all the extensive damage you have done on the article Zoo. Unfortunatley it was not possible to keep any of the good edits made after your edits. Please restrain from that kind of actions, this is a a collective project. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe that is true in respect to some of the text. But what about the pictures? Some of them have been replaced by substandard images and there is at least one Featured Picture that has been removed. The leading picture, in particular, is almost ridiculous.-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

SV, when you say, "Likely copied from somewhere," on the talk page, are you refering to the entirety of the contentious version? Inquiring minds need to know! I looked over the two versions. They both read well. I will venture to state that one of them is a considerably better read than the other, with better blue linking. Thats just my opinion, though. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks SV. Thats about what I thought after looking at the diffs. However, there may have been a massive re-write. I've done a few of those myself, here and there. On that topic, if I might impose, I once created an article, Martin Hartwell. It was an OK article, but in the interveneing years, at least one family member of one (or more) of the principals has edited there, and removed some of the more (how shall I best put it) - controversial- material concernig the events which transpired. I have hesitated to restore any of the material. I don't want to appear to be "married" to any particular version. I suppose what I really want to ask you for here is some guidance, should I take the matter to RfC? Is there a more appropraite venue. The dialogue about the Zoo article prodded my memory on this, and I thought to ask you about it now. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

New Section!

Hi SV! I see you are busy, but I really do need some direction. I had earlier promised another editor that I would proof read and compare citations on the SEIU Local 1 Canada article. Wow! This thing is so slanted, I'm surprised the text dosen't slide off the screen!

It's not even that it's slanted to the "left or right" in a political sense... there are whole sections that read like a rant. I even apologised to an IP who had parsed the thing down. The three citations link to the Union home page which Do Not Appear to serve as any kind of reliable guide to the content that has been included here. Good grief! Shocking!

I am leaning towards the restoration of the 209 IP's version. I need cool heads, and steady hands. And some advice, as once again, this is an article that I have been watching for a few years now. At one point there was some text in there about "finding (the union pres.) out golfing with her V.P. on most afternoons." Really.

Ideas? Comments? Directions to follow? Who else am I going to ask?Hamster Sandwich (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I restored it previously....then read it again. It's really not "encyclopedic" in the expanded version I restored. After pondering which course to take, I may opt for "Be Bold." Thnaks for taking the look at it for me! Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I am impressed...and surprised.

Re the edit of Nick Benton. I figured the timing of your edit was the same as that other guy, so you two were the same. And then I looked at your page and saw that you've earned a badge for keeping LaRouche movement propaganda out of Misplaced Pages. I share your goal and had been working to put Nick Benton's page into a clearly factual perspective. I would think maybe 10% of the page should be devoted -- factually -- to his role in the organization.

Now, however, the page is all LaRouche, all the time. That's not accurate either. Your assistance in reverting it to my edits would be welcome. Or, jeez, at least not portraying the guy as a mindless LaRouchite--he's publicly repudiated him--would be the intellectually honest thing to do.

Don't expect anyone to read this or care. I'm not interested in earning 20+ rotating stars...just getting closer to the truth.

Best regards,

HAJ1300 (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine

Long time no see. I'm asking for help in dealing with an article that may be very important for the future of the Wikimedia foundation and the ability of editors to report controversial subjects (news story). I'm asking you for help as, from our interaction on animal rights, I learned a lot about attributing views and writing for the "other side". Can you therefore look over the current article and act as a informed, expert and disinterested reviewer of how the sources are presented per NPOV? I would be very grateful. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 00:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Images on wikipedia

Yes, images can be placed in any category. However they are mostly placed in image category for navigation purposes. While Misplaced Pages:Categorization#Images is short, I think it makes the point that images should be in dedicated categories with exceptions allowed. The images and the categories that I removed don't really add anything to the navigation. Also remember that that on commons that type of categorization is appropriate since that what commons is for. Misplaced Pages is set up to classify and help navigation between articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The main category structure is set up for article navigation. As Misplaced Pages:Categorization#Images states, there is a separate tree to facilitate image navigation so images should really be listed in that tree. The images I removed are also in multiple categories where they add nothing to the category. Having them in the appropriate articles is ample to show what they are about is all that we need. If they are needed for navigation, then they should be placed in one of the image navigation trees and not in an article navigation tree. That's why templates have their own navigation tree and other classes of information are treated likewise. Mixing, while not wrong, does not help navigation by hinders it. If there are image categories, those can be included in the article tree as necessary. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't understand what I am writing. Then your understanding of how categories are being used is also lacking. Being able to do something and vs. how categories are really used can be different. I'll point out that many image categories are actually being removed since some editors feel that they are of no use and there should be no images on wikipedia. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello, SlimVirgin. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Inline citation guidelines

Regarding the general citation guidelines and FA standards issues raised in this ANI thread: Since you spend a lot of time Misplaced Pages namespace pages, perhaps you could help tone down the language of the FA standard, and that of WP:CITE, which currently strongly encourage use of inlines practically after every statement? I have to say I was recently involved in this kind of disputes on both ends! There is a recommendation for math and science articles in Misplaced Pages:Scientific citation guidelines#Uncontroversial knowledge, which is fairly different from that of WP:CITE: even when inlines are given, there an implicit assumption that the rest of the article contents is based on the initial general texts unless otherwise specified, so inlines can be used more sparingly. Of course this may be iffy in areas where Misplaced Pages articles are not a condensed version of some larger body of knowledge from just a few sources. I think a general principle when to use inlines could be along the lines "when the statements are not reflected in multiple general references on the subject". General reference may be hard to define in the abstract case, but perhaps WP:CITE could at least defer that discussion to area-specific guidelines? It's easy enough to say that a textbook is general reference for Math/Science etc. Perhaps disputes like that tl;dr ANI thread can be avoided in the future if the recommendations when to use inlines are made along these lines. Surely this idea could use some polish, but I don't have a lot of time on my hands to take part in long policy/guideline discussion. Thanks, Pcap ping 07:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Closed

Nice save! Marskell (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Quds day

Could you please intervene in Quds Day? User:Paradoxic violated 3rr two times in less than 4 days. User:Paradoxic deleted information including the sentence " In recent years, only a marginal proportion of young Iranians have attended(in anti-Israeli rallies)." 4 times. , , , . The problem is that the other admin rejected our request to block the 3rr violator in both cases (today and 3 days ago). The user keeps deleting reliable sources such as BBC, NY Times, Christian Science Monitor and... replacing them by unsourced information or information from Islamic regime funded media Press TV and other mouthpieces of the Islamic Regime Iran. He systemically whitewashes all criticism of Iranian regime. Last time the admin who accepts that he has not enough experience on Israel-Arab disputes did not block User:Paradoxic, instead the admin locked the article on User:Paradoxic version--WIMYV? (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey SlimVirgin. Regardless of admin tools stuff, I could use some input from another admin (and someone more familiar with this area) regarding an editing restriction I proposed at Talk:International al-Quds Day#Suggestion. I'm trying to deal with the situation fairly, which of course puts me in the usual mediator's position of being accused of bias by people on both sides. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 22:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Marshalsea

I'm still working through - got some browser problems and have had to go into Internet Explorer (yuk), so it's taking some time. I will be striking the oppose despite remaining concerns, though I don't think I can support at this time. I do wish the article well, though. PS I like the picture on your userpage (I meant the one on this talkpage). Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope all the strikeouts and comments came through. Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Image Deletion

Sorry about that; I thought I had removed images with {{nocommons}} from my list of Commons dupes. I wound up deleting more than a few images with that template. It should be sorted now. I noticed that you have tagged several animal rights related images with nocommons. Do you mind sharing your motivations? I'm curious as to the reasons people use that template. — Jake Wartenberg 02:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Pounds, shillings and pence

Hi Gabbe, I saw you added the template for inflation-adjusted sums of money at Marshalsea. Someone has asked that the same thing be added for shillings and pennies too. Do you have any idea whether a template for that exists, or any other way of working it out, if not a template? SlimVirgin 04:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Believe it or not, its the same template. There are 20 shillings to a pound and 12 pennies to a shilling, making it 240 pennies to a pound. Divide the number of shillings by 20 and the number of pennies by 240 and add them together to get the number of pounds.

For instance, 2 shillings and 6 pence is 2/20 + 6/240 = 0.125 pounds. To find out the present day value of 2s 6d in 1728 you can use

£{{formatnum:{{inflation|UK|0.125|1728}}}} in {{CURRENTYEAR}}.{{inflation-fn|UK}}

Which comes out as:

£21 in 2025.

Hope this helps a bit. Gabbe (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Marshalsea

I enjoyed reading Marshalsea and say the same in my support vote at the review. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox:Historical Event changes

Re: revert: I did not see that the Thumperward change was made. However, because of your revert the documentation is now incorrect. I suggest reverting your reversion because: 1) the previous method was undocumented and less clear. At the time I made my edits I went to find where it was in use, i.e. using "px=" to tweak image size, but couldn't find that usage. If you know where it is in use, upon reverting to my method change the parameter to "Imagesize=" to match. 2) I realized the difference after I made the change. The problem is, {{px}} is already a heavily-used template, whereas the previous (and since your revision, now current) method used a variable called "px" which is what confused me in the first place. Confused? My change was made to avoid any confusion between the variable "px" and the template "px", that is by changing the method and calling the tweak "Imagesize=" rather than "px=". If that makes your head spin, sorry but I will gladly explain further if you respond here! Sswonk (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

In other words, to make it easier and give the parameter to change image size a more intuitive name, revert your reversion of the infobox template and then go to 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramla and change the parameter from "px = 270" to "Imagesize = 270" there, and anywhere else you use "px =" in a Historical Event infobox. (Done - see below) The change I made was designed to avoid confusion and give the parameter a clearer name, however doing so stepped on your toes which I regret. I wouldn't have done it that way if the thread had been updated to show your question had been answered. I am stepping out for a bit but will check back in a couple of hours for your response. Sswonk (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I revised the infobox template to allow either "px=" or "Imagesize=" to adjust the image size. Per my explanation above, please use "Imagesize=" in the future as it is documented and less confusing. "px=" will be deprecated once I check and revise all of the articles other than 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramla that might use it. Thanks – Sswonk (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Request for a review

Hi SV, thanks for your kind words. I've never done a peer review of an article, but if I have time I'll try to drop by and give that article a read through, and let you all know if I have any thoughts on how to improve it. Cheers. ← George 03:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll certainly take a look at the article, though I'm afraid I couldn't really be described as "having a good knowledge of the I/P conflict" - it's not really my area of study (I'm more of a Europeanist).

On another issue entirely, you might want to comment on Jaakobou's latest sally at . He really does seem to be determined to be unhelpful. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Refdesk question

I thought that you might have some philosophical insight into my question. Or not. See here for details. Viriditas (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I wanted to thank you for your effort at FAC in both contributing FACs and reviewing FACs. I hope that you continue to put in a lot of effort as the area is key to ensuring that the encyclopedic standards here are upheld and furthered. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

appreciate

I am deeply appreciative of your investigative reporting regarding the current situation re sockpuppets and arbom, etc. . You are asking questions that are beyond my skill level to even know to ask. I am glad someone is asking. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Geogre

Perhaps I am stupid, but I had run ins with him for over a year before I found out who he was. Multiple calls by him for me to be banned, attacks against my articles, a deleted page of mine where he mocked me afterward on the name, etc. That name was used to convince a lot of people like me who did not know it was him that there were more people agreeing with him against me. His content contribution was enough that I stated at ArbCom that he should not be banned or blocked, but allowed to continue to edit. It was not enough to make me feel comfortable when others try to make it seem like his actions were anything besides completely inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I might as well point out that Durova had the same inability to know there was a connection between the two, so, if I am an idiot I am thankfully not alone. Sorry to take you down with me Durova. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Dang, hard to clarify that without making a bad situation worse. The dual account use wasn't disclosed, wasn't transparent, and was very hurtful when it came to light. Let's just say I was not predisposed to be sympathetic toward Ottava Rima; the grace and forgiveness he brought to the aftermath raised my esteem for him considerably. Imagine what it takes to mend fences with someone who socks your own siteban discussion to accuse you of insincerity after you apologize. Ottava and I do not see eye to eye on every issue, but here he is right. Durova 04:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Your points are well taken. I think it's very unfortunate that we didn't have a full ArbCom case over this, because I had started collecting diffs that I believe would have shown Geogre didn't intend to deceive anyone, where he made it crystal clear that he was Utgard. I assume, Ottava, that he believed you knew, though I'm guessing about that.

Perhaps this is just another example of what I've been talking about elsewhere, that we can't help but be pre-disposed toward the people we like. I've always liked Geogre, and I've admired his contribs, so I automatically see his perspective, and the differences between his situation and that of Law's jump out at me. Whereas if you're not so inclined, it would be the similarities between the situations that would seem more prominent. SlimVirgin 12:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I could introduce the further evidence that when bringing up Loki's actions as meat puppeting for Bishonen and Geogre in discussions, people were willing to see that, but no one mentioned that it was an actual sock puppet. Meat puppetry is hard to prove, sock puppetry not as much. Half of my block log is directly connected to the operations of that account. Trust me, if I or many of the other people I had dealings with knew, it would have been stopped real fast as that would have been strong evidence I could have used to protect myself and the events of that spring/summer would have turned out far differently. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What I don't understand, SlimVirgin, is that if he didn't mean any harm why he hasn't accepted an olive branch. I didn't ask for the desysopping; I only wanted the truth. Supposing he meant no harm: does he have any regret? Yes, his actions were hurtful. He went after us on both accounts and we didn't know. Others knowing didn't make that any easier; it would have been better on all sides if he had just posted a notice in user space--or if someone in the middle had bridged the gap. Durova 14:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think he does regret that anyone was misled, because he's an honest person, but he was, and I think remains, hurt. When I arrived at Misplaced Pages, Bishonen and Geogre were two of the main voices at FAC, or that's how it seemed to me at the time. They were producing high-quality work, and I very much admired them. Over time, for a variety of reasons, it looked as though their work came to be valued less, I feel unfairly. This was in part because of changing FA requirements, and in part because of unrelated political issues. As Geogre became a "name," some people started following his posts for that reason alone. I know what that feels like, and it can be very frustrating. People don't always react well to it, or rationally. In Geogre's case, it caused him to want to go underground slightly, but not entirely, and he mishandled how it was done. I hope he does someday apologize to anyone who felt misled, because it would be the fair thing to do, and also because it might facilitate his return. SlimVirgin 14:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

But I never interacted with him before he started after me - I merely worked on the Drapier's Letters page and put up a page about Swift's printers, which he said was awful and deleted while replacing it with his own page. Some of the attacks were incredibly nasty. It is hard to see any kind of good intentions behind them. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at his interactions with you, Ottava. I'll try to take look later. I'm assuming any issue he had with you was related to FAR, which is something Geogre was opposed to (and I mostly agree with him), because he felt it often put formatting and style issues above content. But I'm guessing here. SlimVirgin 15:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite the contrary - I defended many of the Augustan pages at FAR and even offered to help preserve them. I think he didn't like the fact that I was working on Swift stuff that he never had a chance to get around to and I approached it in a way different from his own. His attacks on my use of Ehrenpreis revealed that kind of feeling. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It is true that Ottava Rima offered several times to provide references and in other ways tried to be helpful to Geogre. OR was rebuffed, ignored, for reasons only Geogre can fully know —mattisse (Talk) 23:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Flo

See Flo's comment on my talk. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

talkpge posts

Hi, I actually did remove posts from Talk:Men of Israel and encourage folks to do so liberally. These were simply accusing, baiting and soapboxing and pretty much adding nothing but stress to an article that touches on gay porn and Jewish culture - an intersection of subjects that both are routinely vandalized. We need to support good editing and consensus not enable anon personal attacks and soapbox pontificating. If the anons have anything constructive to offer then they are certainly welcome to do so. -- Banjeboi 23:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP is being used, self-admittedly, for ban evasion by User:Ionas68224. -->David Shankbone 23:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Peer review request

I've finally finished a major expansion of the inner German border article - it's the 20th anniversary next month of the border being opened and the fall of the Berlin Wall. I'd be very grateful if you could have a look at the article and let me have any comments on how you think it could be improved. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Again!

Again I must thank you for continuing to speak up articulately in a way I only wish I could emulate. I am so frustrated. The few people like you who are speaking up, backed by facts, are the only hope. If ArbCom cannot be credible, then Misplaced Pages is essentially lawless. Recently, for the first time. I have begun to believe Misplaced Pages is doomed. I hope you can make a difference, and render this untrue. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

1. UK Retail Price Index inflation figures are based on data from Clark, Gregory (2017). "The Annual RPI and Average Earnings for Britain, 1209 to Present (New Series)". MeasuringWorth. Retrieved May 7, 2024.