Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hux (talk | contribs) at 07:16, 13 March 2008 (Linking). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Один

Shoegazing/The Scene That Celebrates Itself proposed merger

Hiya, I just came across your proposed merger of Shoegazing and The Scene That Celebrates Itself. After reading the discussion, I think it is save to conclude a merger is not what these articles need. I was going to be bold and close the discussion and remove the templates. But I thought it would be nice to notify you first, and possibly allow you to refute the given arguments. Have a nice day. -- Pepve 18:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead, and thanks for letting me know beforehand. I appreciate it! -- Hux 19:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Dates

I was under the impression that we were supposed to use the spelling, grammar, punctuation, vocabulary and dating style most appropriate to the article by how it would be done in the article's region and doesn't Kyrgyzstan use the standard? I mean, I have idea. Therequiembellishere (talk) 10:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any convention like that. It is definitely a convention, however, that when one acceptable format/style type has become established it shouldn't be changed to a different formatting/style type. Also, even if your point was generally true it wouldn't apply in this particular case since we're talking about a template which, by nature, needs to maintain one consistent style wherever it's used. -- Hux (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Country

I see you changed "England" to "United Kingdom" in the Draft Dodger article. While England is definitely a country, I am not sure about the UK. At any moment the component parts may separate, for one thing. The UK doesn't have a football team either, while England, Scotland, and Wales do. Furthermore, in the context of the article, the use of "United Kingdom" was not as common as "Great Britain" in the sixties, but in any case (context again) Bill Clinton was in England proper (at Oxford) when his induction notice was sent to him, so the use of England was both correct and more specific to the article. I'm not going to revert it, but it seems to me to lose specificity and period for the sale of political correctness. I too have lived in both the USA (Oregon, can I say that? Or does it have to be USA?) and Britain, now in England. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

How weird: I'm from the UK (London, specifically) and now I live in Oregon! :) But anyway, this is a fairly common issue with editors who aren't from the UK. The full name of the country is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", with the short form being "United Kingdom". England is actually not a country today in any international sense, any more than Oregon is a country, for example. England, along with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, is just one of the component parts of the United Kingdom. The existence of separate football teams is just a historical throwback and means nothing, plus there are other sports in which the UK competes as "Great Britain" anyway, e.g. athletics and rugby league. (Note that in those cases the team is called "Great Britain" and not "United Kingdom" because Northern Ireland is not fully represented - people from there get to choose whether they want to compete with the Great Britain team, or with the Republic of Ireland team).

Anyway, as far as this article goes, it would be correct to say "United Kingdom" when talking about where draft dodgers went because they did not only go to England. In the Clinton example, you can nominally get away with saying "England", since that is technically correct (he was studying at Oxford University, which is of course in England), but since we're writing for an international audience I think it's better to say "United Kingdom" in order to avoid confusion, since that's the name of country. If the situation were reversed, with British people dodging the draft and going to the US, the article would be talking about draft dodgers going to "the United States", rather than "to Arkansas" (or wherever), because we can't assume that everyone knows Arkansas is part of the US. See what I mean? - Hux (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Even weirder: I'm from Oregon, currently living in California for this very wet winter. And by the way, many of us in Oregon would prefer to be a separate country! Thanks for the help with the photo tag, Hux! —Preceding unsigned comment added by FatBear1 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Stay calm

I noticed you had posted a rather forceful response at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Central Asia. Even though someone is being rude to you must stay calm as if you are rude you are just falling to their level. Misplaced Pages:Stay cool when the editing gets hot Thank you, Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Case is now at an administrator's noticeboard. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that being rude in response to rudeness is unwise and unreasonable. However, I don't actually think there's anything in the post I believe you're referring to that could be considered rude on my part. At worst, you can tell I was somewhat frustrated with the nature of the replies I was getting, but that isn't anything that's frowned upon as far as I know. Either way, I appreciate the heads up, as well as your offer to mediate. -- Hux (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Kishlak

Please see "Kishlak" now. I didn't notice that it was a redirect. Mukadderat (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That makes more sense now. Thanks for the reply. -- Hux (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Public domain template use issue

Hux, I want to say personally that I appreciate your wisdom in dealing with the public domain template abuse that I have perceived, and your advice/comments in the Template talk forum and beforehand. I will continue to respond in the Template talk forum. But FYI, I am proceeding along the lines of addressing pics uploaded without source linking, which is the first level before addressing question of copyright after source is identified, with one user. My contacts on this point with the one user have mostly been in the following notices to his talk page:

• User talk:BillFlis#NPS photos that are not in the public domain
• User talk:BillFlis#Notices for deletion on basis of no source indicated

I do feel awkward about being a negative enforcer on this, as I am mainly working in wikipedia to develop list-articles on National Historic Landmarks (NHLs), and this one editor has been adding to the NHL lists for Philadelphia and Pennsylvania. My main previous interaction with him was also negative: I previously tore out a bunch of his work in those list-articles which was basically pasted-in public domain text (not a copyright violation, but in my view unhelpful in developing the list-articles). If you have comments for me about how I am proceeding with that I would be glad to receive them. Sincerely, doncram (talk) 09:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! Tagging images for deletion that aren't conforming with policy is, imo, a valuable activity. Even though I think there are still problems with the way Misplaced Pages is handling licensing of creative works, I think it's better that we err on the side of caution and try to clean up those images that lack source information and proper tags. I don't think we need to go further than those established policies require though.

With regard to public domain text, I'm also not a huge fan of the mass cut and paste, but my objection is on the basis of style: cutting and pasting a bunch of text from elsewhere just doesn't result in a good article. However, it can serve as a basis for a good article, so while just cutting and pasting is pretty lazy, I don't think that wiping it all out is the solution. Better to improve on it, I think. Also, revert big chunks of text purely on the basis that it's been cut/pasted from elsewhere is very likely to create bad feeling, which is another reason I'd argue against it.

I guess that's my two cents! -- Hux (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Jung Myung Seok

Hi Hux, do you realise that many of the refs you are removing have already been discussed and consensus decided they were appropriate? RB972 07:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know which refs you're referring to, but I don't see any consensus on that page for any of the sources. What I do see is several people with different opinions, and I have to say that some of those people appear to be a little too personally invested in this article. Further, I believe the only links I removed were those from the rickross and religiousnewsblog sites, which were simply links purporting to be reprints of extant news articles. Such links are inherently unreliable (because a party with an axe to grind can so easily change the text) and in any case I see that you yourself conceded that they we shouldn't use them, so I guess I'm kind of confused as to where you're coming from here. I'm simply a disinterested party who is trying to improve the article according to WP:V and WP:RS. -- Hux (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The "rickross" and "religiousnewsblog" cites are cited to the original media. I've seen the media on the original publishers. 3 outside editors who commented -- Cirt, Bumm13 and John Broughton -- said this was fine. The other outside editor who commented didn't comment on the page, just policy, which is not in dispute. You also didn't just remove those cites: you also removed a 7days cite, a Donga cite, and an APTV cite. I do appreciate outside editors helping out, but please use the talk page to discuss changes, especially when they contradict other disinterested parties. RB972 09:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's probably better to discuss this further on the talk page. But I do strongly advise you to take a look at WP:OWN - phrases such as, "I do appreciate outside editors helping out", are not appropriate for Misplaced Pages. There are no "outside editors" and neither you nor anyone else owns that article, or any other. We are all free to take the initiative and attempt to improve articles as we see fit within the scope of established policy. -- Hux (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that you misunderstood what I meant by "outside editor". I meant it to mean "a disinterested party" in your words. They weren't involved in the original dispute, hence they are "outside". I definitely not implying that I don't want them there, as implied by WP:OWN comments. I said "appreciate", didn't I? ;) Anyway, I'm waiting for your comment on the talk page. RB972 00:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Komuz

Dear Hux, I'm not a Misplaced Pages pro so I'll keep it brief. I was browsing the 'Komuz' page and noticed your request to know the tunings used for the komuz. If you're still looking, I believe the most thorough reference for this is Slobin's 'Kirgiz Instrumental Music'. I think there is quite a detailed account of tunings used, as well as chords even. If you can't find a copy (it's quite a ratty and rare 'Society for Asian Music' issue from 1969) then I'd be pleased to copy you the relevant sections. Anything to help popularise this relatively unknown instrument. For my part, I'd dearly like to know how best to restring the darn thing. Have you any experience with regard to this?

Sincerely,

Robbie Dawson (London) 207297 'at' soas.ac.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.233.46 (talk) 00:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the note. I actually emailed the webmaster of a site that had some CDs of Kyrgyz music for sale and he sent me some info from the very same source you mention, so I have a pretty good idea of the various tunings. As for restringing, I've yet to do that with mine so I can't help you, I"m afraid. If I find some info I'll let you know. Regards, Hux (talk) 01:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

WIkipedia logo

You said I could use the wikipedia logo modified. Do you know what tag it is? Signed, Nothing444 22:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

On further investigation, it appears that I'm completely wrong! The image page for the Misplaced Pages logo states:

"This image (or parts of it) is copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is (or includes) one of the official logos or designs used by the Wikimedia foundation or by one of its projects. Notwithstanding any other statements, this image has not been licensed under the GFDL. Use of the Wikimedia logo is subject to the Wikimedia visual identity guidelines and requires permission."

So I guess that means you can't use it. Ironic, eh? -- Hux (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject?

Hi Hux, just noticed your flurry of fixes to Oregon-related articles and thought I'd pop by to invite you to join WikiProject Oregon. We've got a good thing going…a number of active editors, a collaboration of the week, a portal that just reached Featured status. Might want to check the talk page for some recent discussions. We can always use more good editors, so jump in if you like! -Pete (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up - I'll check it out. -- Hux (talk)

Well, you must have liked something you saw -- welcome to the project! -Pete (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Old Buildings and Pictures

Greetings from WP:WikiProject Oregon. Blah blah blah. This week we have our semi-annual Picture Drive and a article creation drive for the NRHP List. For the picture drive, go take a picture, or find a free use one (lots of links to gov sites above) and upload it Misplaced Pages. For the National Register of Historic Places, find a red link on the main Oregon list or one of the county lists at start a new article. If its more than just a stub, don’t forget to nominate it for a DYK! Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Tagging images for deletion

I've replied on my talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JD554 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Copying the dukakis tank image to other pages

charming but I'm still one step ahead of you 72.0.180.2 (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I uploaded that image myself and added it to the Michael Dukakis article and only that article. What are you talking about? -- Hux (talk) 05:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

then check this, linked from the '88 campaign page lol

And? Do you see my name anywhere in the history of that page, or on any page on which that image is being used? Just what exactly is your point here? -- Hux (talk) 06:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

no worries, it speaks for itself, I am just noting things like a little postmark machine. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What speaks for itself? You presumably have an opinion about my action here, so please nix the snide comments and just spit it out. -- Hux (talk) 06:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw both versions of that too... nothing to spit out btw, we're both adults here. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Both version of what? Okay, one last chance: I would like to understand what you are trying to say to me. All I see are snide implications that my behavior is somehow at fault, combined with a refusal to actually elaborate. Please speak your mind instead of hedging around whatever point it is you're trying to make. If you simply want to continue on this merry-go-round then I'm just going to delete this as a complete waste of time. -- Hux (talk) 06:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

both versions of your talk comment, the nicer one and the later meaner one.

again, not hard to figure out why you're uploading said image, at said late-nite hour, I'm just trying to save us both a bit of time in the long run, by making note if it immediately. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever actually read this policy page? You should give it a try. FYI, you're making baseless assumptions here and they are not appreciated. But anyway, it seems you're more content to hide behind those assumptions than to have an honest, adult conversation, so I'm done with this. -- Hux (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

again I am just trying to save us both time by ensuring that the image gets used properly in a physical and rhetorical sense, with the least amount of talk page rhetoric from both of us. Believe it or not I only flame out of neccessity. as you can see I am giving you an out, so how about taking it? 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This edit of yours suggests you have considerably lower motives than "giving me an out" and your continued refusal to be honest about what you're actually saying speaks volumes. I'm deleting this waste of space and leaving this comment as a record of it. Draw whatever conclusions you like. -- Hux (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)