Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:33, 10 April 2013

This is Sailsbystars's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 31 days

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present.

Pandemonium A Cappella

I appreciated your comments on the PandemoniUM (A Cappella) page and added three additional independent resources. Would you agree it is reliable after these additions?

Thank You

I want to Thank you for the update and helping me understand more about wikipedia and what is acceptable. I appreciate you adding the necessary links and what I currently do. Hopefully in the future you will see recognize my name worldwide. LOL All the best to you. Thank you also for keeping a watch on this page. Keep up the great work. Anytime you want to communicate directly with me you know my email (Brett@TransformDiet.com). Enjoy your weekend. Thank you. -Brett

A) warming w/o precedent ; B) CO2 buildup w/o precedent ; C) both A and B

Hi Sails,

Recently we saw RSs talking about CO2 rise 10x that of PETM; but do we have RSs that the measured temp rise is unprecedented? Right or wrong I thought CO2 was easier to track in the proxy record than temp itself, and 100-some years is sort of a small window compared to geotime. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

All of your statements are true. However, it's also true to say that the temp rise is unprecedented in some contexts.... for instance the main reason for the Hockey stick controversy was that is showed that the current temperature rise was unprecedented in the past 1000ish years. And another reason for being unprecedented is that the temp rise is of previous geological time scale magnitudes, but over substantially less than geological time. FYI, I wasn't really thinking too much about the sourcing and content with my edit, just wanted to make it flow better with the same content (before the edit of the probably sock at any rate), but without the poor parallel construction. So C.) is the answer, but for a lede, it's possibly too much of a nitpick to make the distinction... Sailsbystars (talk) 04:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

How about exceeds? See the article please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see where you mean. Exceeds is certainly an appropriate word choice. The current wording after the flurry of edits while I was asleep looks decent. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting at Peter Gleick

I think it's all explained when you realise that the editor is the director of communications for The Heartland Institute. Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I went ahead and did the Gleick revert immediately on its own merits, but afterwards I noticed the activity on The Heartland Institute that clearly pointed to the potential conflict of interest. It was late though, so I didn't have the time to go through and see if there was anything salvageable in the edits there. I figured I wouldn't be the only person to put 2 and 2 together... and I was right! Sailsbystars (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Something I'd like to call to your attention

Haven't a clue who I should approach with this as I'm really not involved with the community on Misplaced Pages (virtually all my edits are minor corrections).

Ecofascism

I cannot in good faith believe that this article is anything other than a joke or a Conservapedia writing assignment, and belief me, I have tried. A candidate for nomination for deletion? I don't even know how to do that. Could you please take a look, see if you think there is reason for nomination, and then nominate it? Karin Anker (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

A quick look shows that the article would probably survive a deletion discussion (although one could potentially make a case for it). The article certainly has issues (it seems to be somewhat redundant with environmental extremism). I'll put it on my list of articles that need work, but I can't make any promises. I also probably have a few talk page stalkers who might also have some ideas on how to fix it (possibly turn into a disambiguation page? not sure that can be justified....). Sailsbystars (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Good call, Karin. I did a bit on it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks NAEG, it looks like it's vastly improved. I've been tied up in meteor stuff all day...... Sailsbystars (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi there. I noticed you are a volunteer at the open proxies WikiProject and, because we haven't interacted before today, I had a look through your contributions. You seem to be a qualified candidate for adminship and you could clearly use the sysop tools. Would you like me to nominate you? AGK 20:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi AGK, I have considered adminship, but I'm a bit hesitant to put myself through the gauntlet of RfA. I'll have to think it over a bit (say for the next week or so), but I would be honored to be nominated by you if I decided to run. Sailsbystars (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think qualified candidates should fear RFA, but of course the decision is yours. If you decide you'd like a nomination, please get in touch; and there's no rush to make a decision, so please do take however long you like. (If you do ever go through RFA, I suggest you avoid referring to nominations as "honours" because adminship is a duty, not an honour—though it's a pleasure to know you would think highly of my nomination!) Regards, AGK 15:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: your edit

Re: your edit to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki‎: no/primary source and also very awkwardly written.
I agree it is "very awkwardly written", (but that's easily solved). However, I'm not sure what you mean by "no/primary source". The source is quoted, so there is not "no source". Yes, a secondary source would be better, but why is quoting a primary source sufficient reason for removal? Just asking. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure I'd be happy to expand on my summary. I wrote "no/primary" because it was lacking the inline citation (i.e. the no) and primary because based on the text in the paragraph it was sourced to a memoir. But you already figured that out I think. :)

(Yep! ;-)

I considered rewriting, but I felt uncomfortable with the sourcing because it was basically hearsay: Churchill's doctor claimed Churchill said the atomic bomb was a message to Stalin. That is a rather important statement, supporting the controversial thesis that the bombings were more of a message to Stalin than a means of ending the war. Was this Churchill's main sentiment or something additional to the war-ending necessity? A primary source wouldn't provide that answer, but a secondary text evaluating the historical context would. It's a bit of borderline case by my reading of WP:PRIMARY, but it seems like there ought to be better secondary sources for that sort of thing available, like a textbook I used for a history class way back when: or another book with the same title that seems pretty relevant . Sailsbystars (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Well there you go! I have absolutely no problem agreeing with you. Your edit comment did not do your thought process justice. Thanks for the expansion/explanation - most appreciated. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Also, the inline citation (someone's 1966 memoir...) was vague at best. See WP:Citing sources). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's not at all vague - it's quite specific. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

All I noticed in the version I read was author, year, and literature genre. Unless I missed little bibliographic details (like title) that doesn't really satisfy WP:Citing sources. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Meh, WP:SOFIXIT applies. It took me all of five minutes to find the actual source . Things that can eaily be fixed (improper cite format) aren't grounds for removal in and of themselves. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't suggesting they were grounds for removal; was only trying to add some friendly assistance to an editor who appeared to be asking why something wasn't up to snuff. But of course, they weren't asking me..... sorry to intrude. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm obviously very new to this and still trying to figure it out. I definitely don't want to make the logo available for people to print on whatever they want. How do I go about deleting it?User:drinkingthesea — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASCStaunton (talk • contribs) 16:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent work

		The Original Barnstar
		Just to say, thank you for your excellent, diligent, accurate work with the WP:OP project. Thanks! -- zzuuzz 17:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, thanks for helping me learn the way, way back when. It took a lot of practice for me to appreciate how google is a much more useful tool than a portscan in most cases. Sailsbystars (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Member Helper Kennvido (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)