Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:05, 24 July 2006

Archived discussions

Archive 1, 2

Hey, you contributed formatting to Feminist Phil Grad Progs

Your subject line/note on the Feminist Philosophy Graduate Programs page, that still much formatting needs to be done, is so true.

Your formatting so far is delightful.

Your contributions make it a much better page already.

I began that page because my students found the search for a graduate program frustrating, and so on their behalf (behalves?), I thank you.

Thank you!

Sure not a problem at all. My initial contact with the page came from changing "List of women philosophers" (shudders at grammar) to "list of female philosophers", and I stumbled across this page. I am not very familiar with this topic, so I'll make a few more wikifications and then leave a few templates at the top of the page for some suggestions. One concern of mine is that the article conforms to a world-wide and has an encyclopedic tone (at the moment it reads a bit like an article out of the Atlantic or New York Times). In any event, it's very good and hopefully it'll get better. Regards, AdamBiswanger1 22:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

List guideline discussion

That dark corner wasn't the only place these issues were being discussed. I found 3 locations where the "value judgements" issue alone was being talked about, one of those being on the main talk page itself. Therefore, I've reposted all these issues, including moving the actual prose of current live discussions, to Misplaced Pages talk:List guideline. A major benefite of this, as that now they are set up as their own subheadings, so that each can stand or fall on its own particular merits, while a draft is generally approved or rejected as a whole. This way, some of the proposed additions may actually make it on their own without being dragged down by the others. And one last reason I made the move is because there's a central underlying issue that needs to be hashed out that pertains to the proposed additions as well as to lists in general, and that is the apparent conflict between the role of lists and categories. Take a look at the main talk page and how I've set up the discussions, and I think you'll agree that it is the appropriate forum. By the way, I've already started posting replies to each issue. I encourage you to respond. --Polar Deluge 17:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've also archived the older discussions on Misplaced Pages talk:List guideline, which streamlines the page somewhat, making the new discussions much easier to spot. --Polar Deluge 17:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, but please don't redirect to that page, and please don't make controversial moves as such because a consensus has not been reached, and it may be seen as leading to WP:3RR. If you want to post certain materials on WP:LIST, that's fine, but also remember that WP:LGR is my creation and I have the right to hold a discussion there and propose my own ideas. I personally think that WP:LGR is almost perfect, and I want the principles to stay together rather than be tossed into the mix and therefore ruined. AdamBiswanger1 18:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC

They are already in the mix, and were already being discussed seperately before you created your page. I've found 2 discussions so far that 2 of your issues duplicate. You are holding independent discussions on things that are already being discussed elsewhere. It's needless duplication of effort and will also create confusion, especially if conflicting consensuses are reached in seperate discussions. You should come inside from the cold and join the larger group. --Polar Deluge 18:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I will, but for now I want WP:LGR to be a separate and yet indivisible proposal. AdamBiswanger1 18:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see

User_talk:Paolo_Liberatore#Template_is_being_modified_by_additional_comments_on_a_person.27s_user_page

I mention your name. Travb (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Adw

Hi. When using Template:Adw, do not forget to subst: it. Otherwise, edits to the section will go to the template (Liberatore, 2006). 17:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not true for all templates. Generally, if subst: is necessary it is specified in the template page (in this case, Template:Adw). I have also changed the template so that it gives an ugly red message if not subst:ed (Liberatore, 2006). 18:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the congratulations!

		Thanks for contributing to my successful RfA!
		To the people who have supported my request: I appreciate the show of confidence in me and I hope I live up to your expectations! To the people who opposed the request: I'm certainly not ignoring the constructive criticism and advice you've offered. I thank you as well! ♥! ~Kylu (u|t) 20:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, there's a couple empty templates on your userpage, looks like deleted userboxes? ~Kylu (u|t) 20:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

re: "Funny"

(yeah, I just started reading my talk page today for the first time in a bit)

Yeah, that is pretty funny. I'm becoming increasingly frustrated with Misplaced Pages at times like this, because it seems that logic isn't spread as widely as it needs to be. Besides the unsupported, blanketed "keep" argument, the audacity of having seperate articles on Scooby-Doo, Where are You! episodes is astounding. (This coming from someone who knows them word-for-word. *shrug* I had a lonely childhood.) As more and more people start editing Misplaced Pages for their own reasons, it's becoming a lot harder to maintain decent quality. Most of my edits are on music articles, and....oh man, it gets ridiculous. --FuriousFreddy 23:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Catamorphism

Just wanted to drop off a very quick note — I've asked the nominee a question to clarify their position on assuming good faith and on anonymous editors. Thought I would let you know in case the response would be of interest to you with regards to your vote on their RfA. Thanks. — Mike (talk • contribs) 15:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Mike. I'll check back periodically.  ; ) AdamBiswanger1 15:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No prob. They've actually already responded. — Mike  15:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate the Note

I'm actually a wiki "olbie" who stopped posted several months ago after one too many lame edit wars. Trying to fight the wiki-itch. Right now I'm content to posting in the shadows. I have a sort of Brandt-ian bent about privacy and the fact that my postings at my local starbucks is showing up as an Office Depot ISP amuses me. (Same plaza but I didn't think the wireless range was that far). See you around, Dude. 205.157.110.11 00:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey don't let it get you down. Yea I just thought I'd run that template by ya b/c you can't "vote" in RfA's and your opinion is basically ignored in an AfD. AdamBiswanger1 01:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Philadelphia_wanamakergrandcourt.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Philadelphia_wanamakergrandcourt.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 10:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Opthamology

The reason they dilate your eyes is that they want to increase the size of your pupil in order to see your retina better and look for any disease/damage to your retina. There are now cameras that can get a good image of your retina without dilating your eye at all. The best of these are digital so they can take both eyes in rapid succession and view the images instantly on a large computer screen. Ask your eye doctor if he has the right camera to avoid needing to dilate your eyes. Johntex\ 21:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice rewrite on Johann Christian Bach article

Hi, Adambiswanger1. Thanks for the great rewrite you did of that confusing paragraph in the Johann Christian Bach article, which I had mentioned on the talk page for that article. Now I feel like the paragraph makes sense and actually says something worthwhile. Well, just wanted to let you know it was appreciated. Thanks, Tom (MollyTheCat 16:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)).

Sure no problem-- I heard a really great piece by JC Bach, the name of which I can't remember, so I wanted to learn a little more about him and I read that paragraph and I was really confused because the section headings were irrelevant to the content, and you can tell whoever wrote it absolutely loves JC Bach and is rather resentful that he isn't more popular. But hopefully that helps : ) Oh and one more thing-- Earlier I saw your comment about a need for a source concerning the statement of JC's 90 symphonies. I researched it on google a bit, and I couldn't find anything. Have you gotten any leads? AdamBiswanger1 16:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA

Geez, I should go right to sleep when I say I will. I wouldn't say that I was "vicitorous," I would say that I was on the side of opinions that the editor closing thought had made a stronger argument. Wmarsh does make a good point about my actions do appearing not to follow "the rules," when it is a self interest case. I also highly respect Wmarsh as an editor and an admin, so I will respect his opinion. Thank you for your interest, and if you need anything you can contact me or drop one at the RfA. Yanksox 03:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Misza13's pile!

Thank you for contributing the impressive the pile of supports gathered on my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 0x0104/0x01/0x00. I'm happy that so many people have put faith in my abilities as an admin and promise to use the tools wisely and do my best not to let you down. If I ever may be of assistance, just leave a note on my talk page. Misza13, the rouge-on-demand admin wishes you happy editing! NOTE: This message has been encrypted with the sophisticated ROT-26 algorithm. Ability to decipher it indicates a properly functioning optical sensor array.

thanks

Appreciate your kind counsel on how to better position myself to achieve Admin status. Williamborg 06:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Goad

I thank you for informing me. Moreover, the revert by you you was fine. Sometime, I do things in a hurry! Cheers. --Bhadani 15:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)