Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tim Shuba (talk | contribs) at 20:17, 10 August 2009 (→Photon time dilation: section deleted – Softvision's disruption continues). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please post new messages at the bottom of the talk page, use headings when starting new talk topics, and sign all contributions.

Portal:Thailand

Thanks for adding more item. I think the Hem article is interesting. Too bad there's no image we can use for the portal. It's such a pain that those deletionists don't consider portals worthy of fair-use! --Melanochromis 17:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Day of rest / Sabbath

Some definitions of Sabbath are examples of a Day of rest, but they are not one and the same. The definition of Day of rest is linked from several other articles where a link to Sabbath (in lieu of Day of rest) would not properly define the term. As the definition stands on its own, as no content was merged into the Sabbath article, and as it would not make logical sense to place it in the Sabbath article, the changes have been reverted. Alansohn 20:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Kievan Rus

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Kievan Rus'. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. --133.41.84.206 08:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Herbert Dingle

I've never run across you editing to the best of my recollection, but you seem a reasonable sort. Perhaps you could take initiative on an RFC or something? At this point I'm going to guess that nobody there sees me as a neutral good faith party (I think I've managed to somehow be on the opposite "side" of everyone there)... otherwise I would do it. Consensus should not be all that hard to achieve with some influx of outside opinions.--Isotope23 14:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've thought about this, and I'm going to refrain from starting an RfC, though it's probably the best way forward. I'd rather see how others handle it, especially as I'm intending to mostly ignore wikipedia for quite a while due to other projects. Tim Shuba 04:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough!--Isotope23 13:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on my AFD "CITIES BY LONGITUDE"

I saw your comment on my AFD for Cities by Longitude, and I about laughed my ass off. IF it was malformed as you say it was, then why the hell was it in the AFD pile to begin with? (It was placed in the pile on Nov 9, and votes can in Nov 10 on!!!) Your first comment , like I said was comical enough, but then to say it's encyclopedic tells me you don't know what the heck you're talking about. Read this then tell me it meets this criteria. (FYI - It doesn't). Next time be a man about it and say "KEEP BECAUSE WP:ILIKEIT". KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 18:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Apparently it was opined (AFD's are not votes) upon because editors saw the AFD at the article. It wasn't correctly listed until Dumbot caught it on the 11th.--Isotope23 20:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

question...

I see you haven't been very active lately. Nevertheless -- I am asking everyone who made a substantial contribution to H. Candace Gorman whether they think User:Butseriouslyfolks's large excision was justified by policy.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I commented on the talk page. I did originally express my disagreement for his action, and wasn't terribly impressed with the response, but it wasn't an argument I cared to pursue. I still do support reinsertion of the material. Tim Shuba (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Advice

Yours. Thanks for it. Cheers, dfg (talk) 06:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you think?

Most likely you are busy with more pressing matters, but just on the off chance that you can spare a few moments, I'd be grateful for your input here. By the way, thank you for the link to Chris Hillman's archive of Misplaced Pages contributions: good reading.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you got some good input from Jim E. Black, better than I would've given. About the only think I can think of right now is to try keep discussion on the article talk page relating strictly to the topic itself. There are many problems with the way scientific subects are presented (or misrepresented) here, and several reasons why experts in various fields are chased out by the wikipedia system. Some people are trying to improve the situation, and there are improvements in certain cases, but it is a long road ahead, with many pitfalls. Tim Shuba (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikkidd

You may have seen that he and 2 sockpuppets have been blocked indefinitely and I gave a couple of IPs short blocks today. But he'll be back. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Speed of light

Hi Tim. The fight against the crackpots continues on WP.

Your presence at the above article would be much appreciated. One editor continues to fill the article with his own personal and somewhat idiosyncratic views. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's quite the group of collaborators you are running with at that article. It doesn't look like fun at all to get involved. One problem evident there, which is endemic throughout wikipedia, is that disputes often lead to an insane number of footnotes, practically one for every sentence. Not only does this make the article less verifiable and reliable as a whole, but it encourages disjointed writing and lack of cohesion. For example, if there is agreement that the book by Zhang is an important reference for the subject, what a real article writer would do is to present the gist of how it relates to the article subject, by employing a carefully constructed set of sentences or paragraphs. Sourcing every sentence in a paragraph or section willy-nilly from different sources leads to confusion, and promotes shoddy writing. Oh, speaking of shoddy writing and bogus research, look at this excellent citation. Not only does the referenced page not support anything in the paragraph and does not refer to the speed of light even once, what it does say in part is the following.

This kind of stuff gives me a chuckle. Primarily, I use wikipedia for enjoyment rather than attempt to edit seriously. Since I am aware of how and why so much blatantly bogus information gets into articles, and why a large number of articles are highly unreliable, it doesn't affect me adversely as a user. Therefore, whether the speed of light article gets better or gets worse isn't too important to me. Good luck, though. Tim Shuba (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will battle on, it was an FA once. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)