Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Quaiqu (talk | contribs) at 16:01, 1 May 2006 (→Reason for revert?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A welcome from Sango123

Hello, Jefffire, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
• Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
• The Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Simplified Ruleset
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Misplaced Pages Glossary

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Misplaced Pages is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango123 (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

Hi there!

I'd like to welcome you to Misplaced Pages as well. Don't worry about making mistakes, they will quickly be picked up by another user and will be fixed. Plus Misplaced Pages has a policy of not biting newcomers. Hopefully, you've noticed that Misplaced Pages provides a lot of help for newbies so don't hesitate to ask someone (including me). To get the tilde, press (shift + the key next to the 1 button), well that's where it is on my keyboard, above the tab. Have fun editing! Akamad 06:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd have to second that. Mistakes are not a big deal. Relax, make yourself at home.--ViolinGirl 21:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Mike Church (radio) Article

I think the edit you did on that article was spot on. The paragraph certainly wasn't from a neutral point of view and deleting it was in my opinion the correct choice of action. And it's good that you used the talk page too, which is something I try to do when making an edit that I'm not too sure of. The paragraph in question was added here, and as you can see, the user also changed "American Badass of Talk Radio" to "American dumbass of Talk Radio", and "King Dude" to "King Dork", so I am going to change those two back.

One improvement I can suggest is to write an edit summary when saving the changes so it's easier to see what's what when looking at the article history. But other than that, nice work. - Akamad 15:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello!

I just popped in because I saw your question about the tilde. You probably already know this by now, but it's on the key to the top left of your keyboard; just under "escape" and just over the "tab" key if you have a standard KB. capitalist 03:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC) my talk page

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverted modifications

Hi Jefffire,

I make some modifications in the What the Bleep Do We Know!, but you have reverted all of it. Do you disagree with my suggestions, you make it clear. But can we talk about?

Agostinho. Agostinho 16:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Images

This would depend on where you got the image. For example, if you took it (or made them) yourself, then you can use it. Most images downloaded from the web cannot be used, since they are most likely copyrighted. If an image is copyrighted it can be used under the fair use clause. As a rule of thumb, the following classify as fair use (I got the list from Misplaced Pages:Fair use):

• Cover art. Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary).
• Team and corporate logos. For identification. See Misplaced Pages:Logos.
• Stamps and currency. For identification.
• Other promotional material. Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary.
• Film and television screen shots. For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television.
• Screen shots from software products. For critical commentary.
• Paintings and other works of visual art. For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school.
• Publicity photos. For identification and critical commentary. See Misplaced Pages:Publicity photos.

So, if you obtained the image from the web, it seems unlikely that it would classify as fair use, since the subject matter doesn't appear to fall into any of these categories.

Have you looked at the Misplaced Pages:Image use policy page. It provides plenty of info. Plus the Misplaced Pages:Fair use page is also good. Hopefully this helps, if not, feel free to say so and I'll try to provide you with more info. - Akamad 22:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: your Dianetics talk page posting

Hello Jeffire, and have fun on Misplaced Pages.

Regarding a recent Dianetics talk page posting you made, "Whether or not the claim is true, without verification from medical science it must remain out of wikipedia. Jefffire 15:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)" I wish to inform you of a wikipedia policy, WP:V which states, "the threshold for ... (for including informations) ... is verifiability not truth" To phrase it otherwise, if it is published then it may be included in Misplaced Pages. I am trying to present to you the policy, the foundation of Misplaced Pages. I am not attempting to persuade you, correct you or otherwise change your attitude. I am simply informing you. The reason I am informing you is because of the statement you made which implies that editors have some duty about sorting truth from fiction and presenting truth in articles. That is not the foundation of Misplaced Pages, instead the foundation of Misplaced Pages is "verifiability". If it is published, it may be included in Misplaced Pages. Again, please don't take this as any kind of evaluation or insult, I mean nothing more than to inform you of Misplaced Pages policy.

In the case of the Dianetics article, anything published about Dianetics can be included, if you follow. Any statement which Dianetics has published, any statement which any medical doctor has published which comments on Dianetics, etc. etc. It is not up to us editors to sort the "truth" from the "fiction" but up to us editors to present good, clean, easily read information which a reader can make sense of and then, do further reading on their own. Have fun :) Terryeo 15:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You cannot seriously argue that your edit was anything other than blatent POV pushing. I'm perfectly aware of the rules of wikipedia, that is why I reverted the change. Jefffire 15:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

Hi Jefffire! Trying to be helpful: spelling mistake on your talk page: "fundementals". Nit-picking of course, but those little details can be so important to some people. MayoPaul5 20:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Another typo on user-page I forgot to point out "commments". Let me know if you don't give a damn. MayoPaul5 20:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I greatly appreciate it! Jefffire 20:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Revert POV

I see you choose to enlighten other editors with your edit summarys, this is in keeping with Misplaced Pages policy and insures a politeness of conduct so that we may all work together, smoothly, toward presenting readers with good information. I encourage you to continue to do so. I too attempt to specify the edits I make, as well as possible, in an edit summary. Misplaced Pages spells out that we all should, it is the first communication another editor reads and it tells of our motivations, our reasoning and provides a springboard for disccussion page discussions. And those of course lead to collaberation, which is the basis of Misplaced Pages editing. :) Terryeo 17:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Cold Fire, er Fusion

Jeff, I added this to Talk:Cold fusion controversy . JoshuaZ had contacted me about POV in the article. My initial thought was, how can there be POV re cold fusion? Then I read the article. Oy. Jed's a bit out of control. I already contacted Josh, and let him know I'd be happy to help out on this (you seem to be the lone voice for NPOV there at the moment), but we need to do it as a team. Please get back to me with your thoughts. Take care. •Jim62sch• 09:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Jed has already essentially threatened an edit war. On the other hand, if he reverts all (or most) of the changes, then I guess that can be dealt with. One key that Jed is missing is that he's asserting, but failing to prove. (For example, he insists that only a handful of papers have been written "against" cold fusion, a statement belied by his vehement defense of cold fusion). If memory serves, most physicists have indicated that cold fusion is unlikely to be of any value (assuming one can even start the reaction) because it would require far more energy than it produces).

Well, anyway, I think it'll work well with more people working on the article. •Jim62sch• 11:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

In regard to this dif I don't see anywhere where Jed called my edits vandalism. Where did he do so? JoshuaZ 19:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

He wrote rvv as his edit summary. It may have been a slip of the finger though. Jefffire 19:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Jefffire, it is hard for me to discern exactly what this disagreement is about. Could you provide a very concise description of what it is you are removing, and why it detracts from the overall article? I recommend that you guys file an RfC, since the discussion seems to be deadlocked. A NPOV is important here. ~MDD4696 21:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The factor which Jed appears to have become fixated on is the removal of a paragraph comparing cold fusion to various scientific discoveries which did not have adequate explainations in their time. I've explained why the comparison is specious, namely because these were observations which were definately happening whilst cold fusion is highly dubious, and removed it. Jed is making the appeal to authority fallacy here in claiming that a Nobel lauriates views must be relevent. Jefffire 22:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I wrote a new section on User talk:JedRothwell. Could you take a look at it? Somehow we need to note the difference in the old experiments and current research on cold fusion. ~MDD4696 04:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That is not exactly an "appeal to authority" fallacy. It would only be a fallacy if Schwinger had not been a real authority on HTSC, seismology and the experimental method, which he most definitely was. Here is the definition:

"An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.

2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.

3. Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious."

See the rest of the discussion on this page. It is rather involved. Now if I were to assert that Schwinger's views alone are sufficient evidence to resolve the entire cold fusion debate, that would be an "Appeal" fallacy. Quoting the discussion, "If there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute among the experts within a subject, then it will fallacious to make an Appeal to Authority using the disputing experts."

People often make this mistake about the "Appeal" fallacy. --JedRothwell 20:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually you are thinking of the appeal to false authority fallacy. This is a fairly textbook case of appeal to authority fallacy. Jefffire 09:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Please contact Shanahan

Hi. Please ask Kirk to send me his latest papers for LENR-CANR.org. I have not heard from him in some time and I do not have his e-mail address.

We have his other two papers, so let us get them all. We also have Storms' rebuttal, so it is only fair to include Kirk's paper.

Also tell him that I did too include his debate in the "Controversy" article but it got smooshed together with the next item so he may have missed it. Attached is the note I wrote about it.

My e-mail address is JedRothwell@mindspring.com

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"Please note that I did include the Shanahan - Storms debate here. I put a link to the Storms paper. I do not have an on-line link to Shanahan's paper, but of course it is listed by Storms. If Shanahan gives LENR-CANR his latest paper, of course I will include it. (We have one of his earlier papers, so he may have simply forgotten to send this one.)

The 'Shanahan - Storms debate' item was accidentally smooshed together with the next item down, the Scientific American debate. Perhaps that is why Kirk did not notice it was listed here.

If I or someone gets a chance, all of these links should be converted to the paper titles, in which case we will add Shanahan's titles.

I did not discuss the debate because it is rather complicated and technically involved. (More so than the other critiques listed here.) I could expand it, but since it is rather technical it would be better to ask Shanahan and Storms themselves to write a paragraph or two."

--JedRothwell 18:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

YOU smooshed Shanahan

Reviewing the history file, I found that you were the one who accidentally squooshed the Shanahan article together with the Sci. Am. You deleted line feeds without noticing. Shanahan wrote:

"His article lists the 'Shanahan-Storms' debate, then immediately jumps to a SciAm problem he has."

You should tell him "oops!"

Anyway, no harm done. --JedRothwell 19:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Overall it looks like I mistook a useful link for needless waffle, please correct. Jefffire 09:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Jed and 3rr

He just reverted again despite your warning, which brings him up to 5 reverts I believe. I need to go actually work now, but I recommend you file a 3rr report. JoshuaZ 14:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Jed has been reported by an an admin involved, Killerchiuhaha. I'm disappointed it has come to this again. Jefffire 14:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Jed's talk page

I will delete my talk page anytime I feel like it, as I have done several times in the past. I do not wish to hear your views on this matter, or any other. I will probably delete any message you post on my talk page, so don't bother posting one. --JedRothwell 15:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You do not have that right. Jefffire 15:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Wired article reference

May I ask why you considered the Wired article an inadequate reference? JoshuaZ 14:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Basically because all it does is state that the author thinks that Cold Fusion is being repressed and an example of this is the rejection by journals, but beyond the opinion it doesn't give any information for that. Feel free to put it back if you disagree, but the other reference is top notch and is really all that is needed. Jefffire 14:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi jefffire

May i ask u that why did you revert back to previous on 'muslim'. Even your page quotes God as He. Moreover, just deleting a reference without reason is not understood. Can you please put me wise on this.

On my user page that comment is meant as a subtle joke at an old train of thought of why one should believe in God. However outwidth a userpage it is neccasery to adhere to stricter standards for writing and to bear in mind that we are writing for an audience who might not believe the same things we do. As a result the capitolisation of "he" when refering to a monothesistic god isn't correct encycopedic writing (with certain exceptions of course). Jefffire 19:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Reason for revert?

Was there any reason to revert the harmless little edit I did on homoeopathy? I added some clarifying information that would help a reader unfamiliar with the subject and time H was working in. You said that you reverted based on POV, but I don't see that any POV was implicit in what I had added. Please note that Wiki is a group project. elizmr 14:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to change it into something more NPOV, but wikipedia was playing up a little so all I was able to do at the time was revert. I've made some appropriate changes now. Jefffire 14:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm honestly curious to know what you thought was POV about what I wrote since I can't see it as being POV at all. elizmr 16:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)