Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:44, 16 December 2006

User talk:HighInBC/Header

UB article

Thanks for comments in the UB article discussions and my user page. I did have a question for you, actually, since you're someone who both has an understanding about the book and is well-versed and very active in the larger wikipedia world. As I said on the article discussion page, I have an inclination toward making the "Cosmology" and "History and future of the world" sections articles in their own right. I think it's justified for reasons of organization of the material and making the main article more manageable to digest for the average reader. Do you think expansion into a series of articles is warranted at this time and in line with "notability" considerations?

The few ancillary TUB-related articles like Thought Adjuster and The Fifth Epochal Revelation don't seem to gather much editor attention and TA had to survive an AfD, while FER is tagged as being not so great an article right now. (Personally, I don't intend to improve FER though I've edited it in the past, as I don't think it's really justified as a topic. The phrase to me should really just be a redirect to the main TUB page, like how "The Urantia Papers" is, since FER is essentially only a slang phrase and not so much a topic. An alternate idea I had was to rename the article to be "Revelation (The Urantia Book)" and have it be a more generalized article on the concept of "revelation" per the book, eg. go into "autorevelation" vs "epochal", but haven't mustered the time and interest quite.)

So, anyhow, I'd be interested in your opinion on whether you think expansion to additional articles is justifiable for the overall TUB topic. Thanks. Wazronk 04:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with The Urantia Book would know that a wealth of content exists. What is needed is third party reliable sources. I would say that any article that can be more than just a stub with verifiable material is justified. The existing article is large enough to justify branching articles. Eventually the article can become a summery style article where each section refers to it's own article. See Canada for an example.

The second challenge is not one of acceptance, but one of practicality. It may be hard to find editors for branching subjects. However, critics are bound to show up, and they are useful in articles that get no other attention if only to keep the few active editors honest.

When a new article is created that is a split of an existing article, there is often a movement to merge the information into the original article. To avoid this it is best to start a new article with a reasonable amount of well sourced information. Not just a stub, you can start in your userspace by gathering sources for the specific subject like this: User:HighInBC/Hempology 101 - notes. Once it is at the point where it is a respectable article the Move command can be used to bring it into the article space. This is a big task, and I will help. HighInBC 04:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks in advance for your assistance, I appreciate it. I'll likely piece together a "Cosmology" article and follow your advice about making use of my userspace to draft it. When I wrote the glossary I did it offline on my own since there weren't as many editors around but it makes sense to do drafts online if others can then assist. I'll let you know when I have something reasonable fleshed out. All the best. Wazronk 05:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me know when you have a start page, and begin with sources, I can read those and help bring out content. HighInBC 05:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Creating the article online not only allows for collaberation, but provides a very valuable edit history for the future. HighInBC 15:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD on Anderson

Hi Ryan. You closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/James Anderson (mathematician) as "no consensus". Could you please explain why you did this? By the way, I'm also an admin so I know the policies, I'm just interested in how you applied them in this case. Thanks in advance for your explanation. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the arguments on both side seemed compatable with policy. That seeking to delete were claiming a lack of notability, while that claiming to keep were claiming notability. The major difference of opinion was if the sources in the article qualified the subject as notable.

This seemed very close to delete to me, but there was not a clear majority in my eye. Straight number counting gives about 61% for delete. I attempted to going through an remove votes that were not based in reason and policy, but the percent remained the same.

This was one of the first batch of AfD's I closed, and while I am more confident with the decision No consensus than I would be with Delete(the choice I was leaning too), I am certainly open to an constructive critisisms on the closing. I am always looking for friendly advice. HighInBC 14:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That's understandable. I also thought it was close, but I thought it should have been a delete, not no consensus. Perhaps we counted differently, but once you eliminate the keep votes based on ideas of "debunking", etc., I thought there was a clear majority (although not overwhelming) for delete. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 15:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, I almost decided delete. I am sure my judgement will improve as my experience grows. HighInBC 16:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my opinion is along Chan-Ho's lines: I'd probably have closed it as a delete, but it is a close call, and I can understand that you went the other way. If I may make one suggestion to you, HighInBC, add a short explanation of how you came to your decision if an AfD is close. But I like it that you don't shrink from the tough calls. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe he did the right thing. It should have been moved and then kept, and that is what ended up happening. Mathmo 21:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

IP 162.40.20.99

That IP is an open proxy, accessable through irage.us. Also, thanks for reverting that vandalism. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. HighInBC 17:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Cannabis (drug) worthy of 2nd FAC?

I feel that Cannabis (drug) has improved, and is worthy of a second go for FAC. I'm quite inexperienced, so I thought I'd ask you if you felt the same way. So, what are your thoughts? --Jmax- 06:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is defenetly above the common article in quality. However they are very picky about FAC. May I suggest you post the article at Misplaced Pages:Peer review stating your interest in making it featured. They will find the smallest of problems and point them out.

Things like the {{NPOV-section}} tag need to be addressed and fixed of course, some of the images can be retaken(I can help there), and new ones could be helpfull. I will look further into it later. HighInBC 16:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

please see User talk:Srkris

please see User talk:Srkris

bye Pluto.2006 10:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Concerning a recent revert

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=NetHack&diff=94582664&oldid=94582205

Hello, I noticed you reverted my edit (I was that anonymous IP address). Before I undo the revert, I'd like to make sure it was a misunderstanding.

I added those words :-p From the edit comments, it looks like you thought that I removed them. So I'm about to revert unless you disagree. --Dragontamer 22:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

lol, my mistake. Thanks I reverted myself. HighInBC 22:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

User:John Zdralek

FYI, just as a minor point of correction, you said in this edit summary, "fair use images cannot be used outside of their articles, per copyright law". As a minor point of correction, it's Misplaced Pages policy, not copyright law, that sets that restriction. I point it out not to disagree with you (obviously, you are 100% correct to remove the images and the reason I went to the page was to make sure they had been removed), but just so that you will know and won't have to endure someone angrily adding them back, accusing you of making legal threats, and doing other annoying things people sometimes do when you take their images away from them. BigDT 01:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well technically it would not fall under fair use on his talk page unless we was discussing the subject in question. So while not all fair use images on talk pages are copyright violations, his were(unless I am still wrong hehe). A small point, but an important one. I don't think it could be seen as a legal threat because I made no threat, and pointing out when something is contrary to copyright law is normal.

I should have qualified the statement as In this situation.... But it is not my job to enforce law(thank god), only policy, so valid point there. Thanks. HighInBC 02:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

quizzical expression similar to Captain Haddock and question 'just the CCM image right?'--John Zdralek 02:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Only Fair use images are not allowed to be shown on userpages, all other licenses are. The reason being that the fair use images are copyrighted in a way incompatible with use, except that they qualify under Fair use when used in certain articles.

On the image page there should be detailed fair use rational showing how it meets the fair use policy of Misplaced Pages for each article it is on. However, our policy only allows it in articles that meet these criteria, not userpages.

I see you have been very helpful to Misplaced Pages, and I hope you continue to be. Thanks for discussing this, if you have anymore questions just ask me. HighInBC 02:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed you created those images, I have sent you a note on your talk page as to how to release them to a compatible copyright so you can use them here. HighInBC 02:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)