Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:11, 1 October 2006

NASA World Wind

There is a demo Misplaced Pages layer for NASA World Wind available via http://wiki.worldwindcentral.com/Wikipedia if anyone are interested. Any feedback would be appreciated! -- Egil 09:48, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK

You have expressed an interest in Wikimedia UK. Just to let you know I've posted a draft Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association of the proposed "Wikimedia UK" charitable company on Wikimedia UK/Memorandum of Association and Wikimedia UK/Articles of Association. It is proposed that these will receive initial approval by interested parties at a meeting on 27 November. I will put together a brief agenda for the more formal aspects of that meeting soon. Memo and Arts of Association are a company's constitution, and need to be agreed before the company is formed (though they can be changed at a later date). Please feel free to comment on the relevant talk pages (I'd rather the proposed drafts are left unedited so that it is easy to see what is going on) - particularly if there is something there that you would disagree with at the meeting, details of which can be found on the Wikimedia UK page on Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. Kind regards, jguk 19:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposal on Notability

Because you're a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, I'm notifying you that the inclusionist proposa Misplaced Pages:Non-notabilityl is in progress to define the role of notability in articles. Please help us make this successful! Also note the proposal Misplaced Pages:Importance is a deletionist proposla that seeks to officially introduce notabiltiy for the first time. --Ephilei 04:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Calling programmers

We need coders for the WikiProject Disambigation fixer. We need to make a program to make faster and easier the fixing of links. We will be happy if you could check the project. You can Help! --Neo139 08:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

picture categories

hi,

i just stumbled over the wonderful pictures you uploaded to the commons :)

some tips on categories (had to learn these myself some months ago):

if you know the species, and put it into a gallery page (as you did here, for example), don't put it into a category, too, because this will create a redundancy. also, it's best to hold the category tree a little bit flat, eg. Insects -> Order -> Family (maybe -> Genus). There should not be categories for single species, just put the pics into the species gallery page, and link the gallery page to the family category.

So, if you have a picture where you know the species, put it in the species gallery page. if this doesn't exist, create it, and link the page to the fitting genus/family, or just categorize the picture in the fitting genus/family. If you don't know the species, for spiders the preferred category is Category:Unknown spiders.

if you have any questions, give me a call. and keep these nice pictures coming :) cheers --20:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy at Wikiversity

Thanks I would never known if you hadn't given me the heads-up. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Expert Badges

Hey Cfp, you display badges proclaiming your expertise in math the lambda calculus and other things. How did you get them? Have they helped your wikipedia experience? You opposed the badges for philosophy. Is there a reason you think they work in the one field, but not the other? Or do you perhaps regret that math has been driven to make such elitist distinctions? I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm trying to figure out how well this kind of thing has worked or not worked in other Wiki-areas. Thanks Bmorton3 16:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Haha. No offence taken. I have replied on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Philosophy. --cfp 18:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

NN proposal

I changed the tag because (as with many proposals) it appeared to be not particularly active; it's not a motion to dismiss or anything. If it turns out that it is in fact active, or you wish to once more make it active, by all means put the {{proposed}} back (which has already been done here). HTH. >Radiant< 21:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that if you want to make that proposal acceptable to the community, you will first have to remove the parts that contradict established policy and established guidelines. In this case, that would mean removing pretty much the entire proposal. >Radiant< 13:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I appreciate you doing that. However, my point is really that the intent of this policy is a contradiction. The nutshell header says: "Notability should not be used ... instead, official guidelines and policy ... should be used." - and those official guidelines and policy already include the concept of notability. >Radiant< 14:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I am in the process of drawing up a full reply to you on the proposals talk page. Give me 10 mins... --cfp 14:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Double redirects

Actually, I believe you are mistaken. Double redirects are never permitted within Misplaced Pages; else the exception would be stated on WP:2R and, I believe, the list of double redirects would exclude those exceptions. The rules concerning {{R with possibilities}} stipulate that you're not to replace the links within an article to the end page. For instance, in an article about a historical figure, the link to a death date may say 925 BC, which directs to 920 BC. The article's link should not be replaced to the redirected page (though, typcially, links within articles should not go to redirect pages). However, double-redirects should be fixed regardless of whether they're tagged {{R with possibilities}}. There is one user in particular who purposefully creates double redirects (and tags them with {{R with possibilities}}), but they serve no purpose other than to create extra clicks for the reader. Furthermore, I believe that classifying my edits as "bot work" is, frankly, rather insulting. I'm trying to improve Misplaced Pages just as you are, and I'm trying to learn about different aspects about it by doing edits that I haven't done before. Please be more respectful of a user's contributions, even if they are minor edits that could be automated. -- Merope /_Review 15:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I was a bit rude, but having already reverted a bot that had done what you did manually (before I discovered {{R with possibilities}}), I was understandably marginally annoyed. Though I'm sure there are circumstances where people maliciously create double redirects, this was not one of them, and in any case I think your time could really be better spent doing other things. Furthermore, the impression I got from talking to the author of that bot was that double redirects are acceptable in my situation, and I'm sure he's dealt with many irate people annoyed by his bots edits. --cfp 16:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologizing for being rude while continuing to be rude isn't exactly the best way to win me over.  ;) Saying my time could be better spent ignores what I said about how I am trying to learn about different aspects of Misplaced Pages by doing other kinds of tasks. Bots can't run unless users understand how things work. I'm trying to learn. I think you should revisit your conversation with the creator of the bot, since my understanding is that bots do not ignore redirects with {{R with possibilities}}. In fact, the creator of the bot who first edited your articles says that "human intervention is needed to decide how to resolve the redirect", which is exactly what I'm doing.

I would also like to add that you might want to review Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles. It seems to me that you're being overly protective of James Holden (engineer). As it stands, I'm nervous about working on that article (as it needs attention, especially given that a good portion of the links redirect back to the main page) because you've been fairly hostile towards my simple edits thus far. I understand how important this article is to you, but when you leave edit summaries that say, "Get your facts straight", it puts people on edge. Please remember to be civil and to assume good faith. Cheers! -- Merope /_Review 21:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

James Holden (engineer) certainly does need attention, but the circular links are not themselves the problem. The problem is that those "main article" links refer to articles that need to be created. This would both fix the double redirect issue that started our argument in the first place, and fix the circular links. Those pages were marked with {{R with possibilities}} to make it clear this needed to be done. You are more than welcome both to create these pages (as despite my best intentions I still haven't got round to it) and to make some other improvements to the article. I have no real personal affiliation to it, I know nothing about trains and only created it in the first place to prevent James Holden (producer) being moved to James Holden. I will gladly remove it from my watch list if you think that would be for the best. As for my "get your facts straight" comment, the edit was on James Holden (producer), not James Holden (engineer), and was verging on the slanderous, yet made by the chief author of that page. He actually thanked me for making that edit (see below). I accept I have perhaps not been particularly civil in this discussion and for that I am genuinely sorry. However I think perhaps your original edit may have failed to assume good faith so perhaps we should call it even and go back to the important business of improving WP. --cfp 10:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan! Please understand that I'm just bumbling along trying to learn as much as I can about this labyrinth of information. I'll be more mindful of my actions in the future. Merci beaucoup.

P.S. Your photos of insects are really lovely! -- Merope 04:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

James Holden correction

• Thanks for the info fix on James Holden (producer). I realized that I had been mistaken on this a couple days ago and had fixed a couple other articles. Thanks for picking up on this one though. Cheers! Wickethewok 17:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Esperanza!

Welcome, Cfp, to Esperanza! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.

Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is Stressbusters, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Misplaced Pages events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We will send you newsletters to keep you up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.

In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Proposals.

If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact Natalya by email or talk page. Consider introducing yourself at the Esperanza talk page! Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). If you're new to IRC, you may find help at an IRC tutorial. I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Misplaced Pages a better place to work!

Edit war?

A better way to stop an edit war is this: WP:RPP. The reason is that your tag is well-intended but tends to make people edit war over that tag instead. >Radiant< 23:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently so. Still page protection seems highly counter productive in the given case. So I'm writing a statement that will hopefully be acceptable to both sides, acknowledging that this proposal breaks with usual practice on WP:AFD and WP:CSD while encouraging people to continue working on it and discussing it. I will not mention the word "consensus" nor the word "community" since both of these words leave large amounts of room for interpretation. I had had a large comment on the talk page prepared but firefox has crashed so it is no more, and I really need to go to bed, so I doubt I'll have time to rewrite it. In short though, everyone needs to cool it. There is neither any hurry to accept this proposal or to reject it, so lets all try to avoid making enemies and driving people away from WP, and take things slowly. (Particularly as many of the proponents of this proposal, are on wiki break, as indeed am I.) If you want to view it as "letting the baby have his bottle" then that's fine too. Personally though I recommend you actually try to persuade people why the proposal is a bad idea for WP, directly engaging with the text of the article.--cfp 23:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

OK I did include the words "community" and "consensus" but in a way that if anything should be more acceptable to those who oppose this proposal. I hope you approve. --cfp 00:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I know you mean well, but I don't think you attempt at mediating is helping. I still strongly object to your tag. There is no live discussion here. This proposal is dead in the water - an no ammount of discusssion on the talk page will change that. The argument against the notability criterion has been being made as long as I've been a wikipedians, and it is equally rejected by most of the community. In effect about every thirsd deletion debate is a poll on this. We even have consensus for speedy deletions based on the lack of notability assertions. This notion is rejected, dead burried gone. Of course people can argue against notability, they do so in many deletion debates. Good luck to them. But, for now, there is no consensus against notabiliy. Rejected. --Doc 00:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Look I really don't want to get drawn into an argument here. Consensus though in my understanding means "nearly everyone agrees" so of course there is no consensus against notability. But nor is there consensus for it. Based on your arguments I would be entirely justified in adding the big red cross of rejection to the notability page too. With the tag in its current state people are encouraged to continue to work on this article. They can draw on the arguments it contains for deletion debates, rather than reinventing them each time, and they can update the page based on the arguments they encounter in deletion debates. I cannot see why for you there would be any significant difference between the tag in its current state and the tag in the "rejected" state, while for those who support this proposal the difference is the significant one that it has not been prematurely killed off. If people stop editing the article then in 6 months by all means give it a "historical" tag, but lets not jump the gun. As for the CSD criteria, all the article has to do is to assert the notability of its subject to escape it, and saying almost anything amounts to asserting some level of notability. The question of whether it is "sufficient" or not would have to be decided on AFD not CSD. --cfp 00:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• It's a good attempt, and for any dispute on articles it would work well. However, your tag says that the proposal does not have consensus - and by definition, that means it is rejected. Rejected does not mean "voted down", it means "insufficient support to pass". >Radiant< 00:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh huh. But one the rejected tag states "It is inactive but retained for historical interest" which is downright false, two the tag could equally well be applied to the notability page as I said above, three in order to legitimately remove the tag someone only has to change a sentence of the proposal, four it seems crazy to have rejected on a proposal that isn't even finished yet (I for one am certainly not happy with the proposal text, such a proposal needs considerable subtelty to ever even possibly be acceptable, which, incidentally I doubt ever ocurred in arguments on AFD, which rather negates the claim that this proposal has already been tested) and five marking it as rejected is a way of annoying a lot people and not really gaining anything, something which is never a particularly good idea. We have a compromise solution now (one which errs to your side if any), lets stick with it and get on with the more important business of improving articles. --cfp 00:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Good point; it appears {{rejected}} was badly worded. I've fixed it now (comments welcome). But what is rejected (or at least, lacks consensus, which boils down to the same) is not the exact text of the page, but the idea behind it. Changes to the wording will not change that. This proposal has been around for three months; I've seen proposals rejected in less than three days by a group of people who said "terrible idea, no need to test or discuss this any further". Yes, marking it as rejected bothers some people, but those are the people that are beating the proverbial dead horse; marking a rejected proposal as anything other than rejected is misleading to the rest of the community. >Radiant< 00:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

arbitration relating to NNOT

Hey, I just put together an arbitration case at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Harrassment.2C_talk_page_vandalism.2C_and_non-consensus_changes_to_guideline. You were involved in a few of the points I bring up, and I would greatly appreciate your input. Fresheneesz 05:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)