Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:47, 4 June 2010

Welcome to Misplaced Pages

Welcome!

Hello, Torontokid2006, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! . . dave souza, talk 20:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!! Torontokid2006 (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

On those odd numbers

Actually, I'm not sure which numbers you mean! In your watchlist, the numbers after the article name give the time of the edit, and in brackets how many bytes (same thing as alphabetical or numeric characters, I think) were added or subtracted. In article histories, the number in brackets after the editor's name etc. is the total number of bytes in the article – this is only of much significance when the article gets huge, and there's pressure to split out sections keeping a brief summary, and taking care to maintain WP:NPOV in all the articles.
As for addictive, beware of Wikipediholism. Regarding which, unfortunately global warming is a bit of a battleground which is either addictive or drives you off. Thanks for your sensible and well considered edits. All the drama is certainly a big time sink, and it can be very off-putting having to face the possibility of tedious arguments when editing some articles. However, with good verification from sources and care not to do original research then it's always possible to get well justified changes made.
You noticed the banter about our communistic comrade, whose pen name was explained in an earlier version of his page. He's got good scientific credentials and gives sound advice on the subject.
At its best, Misplaced Pages can do well at describing such culturally divisive issues, and has policies that should give due weight to mainstream science where applicable. It also has guidance on dealing with fringe views. At its worst, it's a bit of a struggle, but in a worthy cause. Just remember that Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source! . . dave souza, talk 19:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

thanks for delving into the odd numbers. I think you're right, I think they represent the amount of bites added to an article or discussion. I've definitely learned a lot in the past couple of days. Misplaced Pages is definitely not a reliable source and it should be used with caution and source checking. Torontokid2006 (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Since I've given links to the main article content policies in this section, it seems a useful place to link the behaviour policies and guidelines which set rules for interactions with other editors. Etiquette proposes the worthwhile ideal, but at the very least civility is demanded, and there must be no personal attacks. Since Misplaced Pages is multinational there has to be quite a lot of tolerance of different cultural concepts. For example, it's merely my own view that it's always a bad idea to call a statement a lie, implying that the editor is a liar, but it's fine to describe it as misleading or incorrect which leaves open the possibility that it was just an error. Always assume good faith on the part of other editors, they may be mistaken but they undoubtedly believe what they're doing is for the best. Although these are essential standards, "calling a spade a spade" gives good guidance on how to be direct. To add to the fun, all policies can be edited, so it's worth checking that they currently say what you remember them saying! Sorry if it seems a bit of a minefield, but as noted below #Global Warming is one of the areas where extra care is needed. One extra handy link: WP:TALK notes that you shouldn't alter anyone else's comments except in specific circumstances, one being that you can delete comments from your own talk page. So, delete this if you wish! (or, probably better to archive it) . . dave souza, talk 07:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Global Warming

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Global Warming, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.

Thparkth (talk) 10:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Thparkth Torontokid2006 (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record...

I don't see the friendly back and forth between us two on Global Warming as edit warring - we seem to be agreeing workable compromises as we go. I don't bring an agenda to the climate change articles, other than to try to keep them in line with the manual of style and other Misplaced Pages policies aimed at producing good, useful articles. With all the fighting between the two "sides" that often gets forgotten...

Just as something to think about, have you ever seen the manual of style section on article leads? In particular, relative emphasis. Basically the material in the lead should summarize what's in the rest of the article. It shouldn't make any significant claims that aren't explored in more detail in the article body. Right now the article body for Global Warming doesn't mention oil company propaganda or similarities to the tobacco industry in any way. I would be a lot happier about having this stuff in the lead if it was properly developed in the body.

Cheers,

Thparkth (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you DID say we were edit warring. I just wanted to get it on record that I don't think we are. If you don't think we are, and I don't think we are, it's highly unlikely that we are ;)

PS You don't need to reply on my talk page - if you reply here I'll see it on my watchlist.

Thparkth (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

yeah I never thought we were edit warring :) So thanks for clarifying just in case. I appreciate that. Haha you can see it? k noobie mistake! Goddamn i always forget to sign my comments!! lol

Well, some people like to have all the replies to them on their own talk page so they get the "you have new messages" banner. Some people like to leave a {{talkback}} template on people's talk pages, directing them to the actual reply somewhere else, but most experienced editors view that as turning one problem (your messages are on someone else's talk page) into two problems (your messages are still on someone else's talk page, and now your talk page is littered with useless crappy talkback templates). Frankly it's not one of the better parts of wikipedia's design. For me, and most people I interact with, the best thing to do is just to reply where ever we're already talking - I check my watchlist obsessively enough that I'll see your reply.

The talkback template looks like this by the way:

One more thing you might not be aware of, it's conventional to go one-level-deeper in indentation when you reply to a comment. So if a comment is two indents deep (like this one), which you can tell because the lines start ::, you prefix your reply lines with :::. It all makes sense if you try it.. mostly. Feel free to use this thread or my talk page as a sandbox if you want to try any of this. Thparkth (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

that's weird because I remember reading in the wiki guidelines that you indent once but should not indent any further if you're discussing the same topic. Hmm.. might just be a preference.

You might be thinking of Misplaced Pages:Indentation. It does say that all replies to the same comment should be at the same indentation level, but of course a reply to a reply isn't a reply to the original comment. I'm not sure how much sense that makes. Anyway, this is what everyone does, right or wrong ;) Thparkth (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

nope you're right. However, I noticed that some people just indent no matter what. Even if they are replying to the original post :S Either way I've read the indentation article more carefully and I think I understand it better now. So thx. Torontokid2006 (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Linking users

To link to user talk pages place "User:" in front of the user you wish to link to. For example, ] links to User:Torontokid2006 while ] links to Torontokid2006. Regards, -Atmoz (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

thanks atmoz :p Torontokid2006 (talk) 06:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

3rr

you have broken the wp:3rr with your last revert on Global warming the removal of tags placed before discussion is completed is also against policy, please self revert mark nutley (talk) 07:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

As I am trying to maintain the quality of the article the 3RR does not apply in this case. A very thorough discussion has recently taken place in regards to the sentences that you would like to tag. If you simply read the discussion you would see that your tags are unnecessary and only serve to call to question an issue that doesn't deserve such treatment.Torontokid2006 (talk) 07:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

In terms of breaking rules I'm pretty sure that you are edit warring by trying to make changes against consensus. You are not trying in any way to find agreement with the other editors. Torontokid2006 (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

A RFE has been filed

Here mark nutley (talk) 07:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)