Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Coppertwig (talk | contribs) at 22:10, 10 April 2009 (→RfA?: A funny definition.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I have a simple two to three step process for refactoring comments that seem to anyone to be uncivil:

Once you provide at least information relating to the first two steps, I will usually immediately refactor. The third step is optional.

You're invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 29th, Columbia University area Last: 01/18/2009 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, sign official incorporation papers for the chapter, review recent projects like Misplaced Pages Loves Art and upcoming projects like Misplaced Pages at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Misplaced Pages and the other Wikimedia projects (see the January meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You're invited

. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Strange nuclear physics on user subpages

Hi, what is the policy on enwp regarding user pages like User:Edguy99/Nuclear Physics and User:Edguy99/Matter and Energy? I noticed this user's drawings in commons:category:Nuclear physics, and I do not regard them as educational. But it is a bit difficult to get them deleted as long as they are in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that if someone has a picture of their pet cat or something on their userpage, then that image will tend not to be deleted from Commons; but that images illustrating theories of physics and stuff like that are probably only acceptable here if they're being used to work on the encyclopedia. In my opinion this might include images with significant problems if they're being used to discuss the development of images that might eventually be usable. Articles in userspace may suffer from significant problems but may be there because the purpose is to eventually fix the problems sufficiently that they can be moved to article space. If, on the other hand, it looks as if the articles are being kept in user space for some purpose other than contributing to the encyclopedia, then it may be a good idea to propose deletion of the userspace articles via WP:MfD.

I suggest that you begin by discussing the matter directly with the user, explaining the problems you see with the images. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I have now left a message at User talk:Edguy99, using a template from the page you suggested. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like he's using his page as an educational or self-publishing site rather than as a user page. kwami (talk) 08:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD on Sheree Silver

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Sheree_Silver_(2nd_nomination). Please be informed. – Shannon Rose (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Optics

Hi, thanks for the invitation. Optics is quite a magnum opus – my compliments. Is there any reason it's over at wikisource, though? I don't have an account there, and did not plan on getting one. Wouldn't a sandbox over on WP be more appropriate for a draft version – such as Talk:Optics/Sandbox? That way, we also wouldn't have all the red links. Anyway, once the text is ready to come here to WP, feel free to give me a shout, and I'll take a look, do some copy-editing, suggest some additions etc. Markus Poessel (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see the problem. I'll just wait until things have moved here to WP, then. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Link to AE request re ScienceApologist

Link to posting at arbcom requests for enforcement: --KP Botany (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

SA, I don't think there is anything there worth wasting your time on. Good luck with the article, I'll make a supportive comment at AE, not that I think it's really necessary. --Abd (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The AE was closed with "Someone re-posted content SA had written somewhere else, and it got reverted. Nothing to do." ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom says there is no issue with using the article, so I'm going to start importing it into the optics article now, and regular edits can edit it there. I will do it section by section, so that regular editors of the article can check references, and do detail editing as necessary. Feel free to edit on Wikisource as you see fit. From first glance, nice article. The optics and microscopy articles need some major work on Misplaced Pages. --KP Botany (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom said there was no enforcement issue; that's quite a separate matter from what you're claiming they said, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe not, apparently there's a licensing issue, according to Durova. --KP Botany (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The licensing issue is only because SA didn't paste it in himself. Otherwise there's no problem. SA should wait until his ban is up to insert the material because then he can defend any challenges which might appear, and also there's not much of a grey area in whether it's permissible then. Looks like a great work though. II | (t - c) 16:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of possible resolutions, but no problem with ban enforcement is created by the article being put in by him under a temporary lift, presumably by arrangement. The article is worth the trouble. He could also grant permission, formally. But absolutely the simplest is that he puts it up, and if he's willing to do that, I have utterly no objection to an admin facilitating it, and I highly doubt that ArbComm will, either. The lift, as long as he makes no other edits, which can be monitored, would be harmless at worst. He could even put the article into a Talk space or his user space (possibly better, because Talk could also be attached or be available), and then it could be moved to the article by normal editorial proceedures. Because of the redirect, though, that would also take an admin. --Abd (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care that much, but 1) banned editors are generally not allowed to edit Misplaced Pages, even temporarily. KP is not the only one who raised this issue; a completely uninvolved user at talk:optics raised the same issue, and 2) probably more importantly, SA can't defend his version and clarify questions which might arise. Makes for an awkward situation. II | (t - c) 17:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, SA is not banned. Blocked yes, banned no. Shot info (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing WP:Banning policy, and SA's block record which uses both words, I conclude SA is temporarily banned by the committee, which is enforced by software using a block. Art LaPella (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the ArbCom decision said "ScienceApologist is banned from Misplaced Pages for three months for disruption, gaming and wikilawyering", and it passed 8-1. Once that period is up, SA should paste his version of optics into the article. II | (t - c) 17:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If he wishes to give permission for it to be copied over earlier, and if someone chooses to do so and takes responsibility that the material is verifiable, that's fine too. "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them." Copying it over may already be legally allowed, but I think it's best to respect ScienceApologist's wishes as to the timing and manner of the transfer: I think there may be plans to copy over the page history for GFDL compliance. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA?

Hey Sci. I seem to have stumbled into a possible run for Admin. The odds seem rather long though, so I'm considering whether it's a worthwhile endeavor. In an ideal world I would like to have you and Giano as co-noms. I guess I might be too tolerant of the fringe content to meet your standards? But I can assure you I am 100% in support of spelling corrections, so hopefully that counts for something. (I was also thinking of trying to have you banned while you're not here to defend yourself). If I go through with the nom I'm counting on you and at least one or two of your meat puppets to support me. I'll try to post the link if and when I "accept", but I don't want to be accused of canvassing so maybe that's a bad idea. How was the meet up? I added a bit about the one in New Mexico to Misplaced Pages, but I think you were stuck in New York while it was happening? A pity. Did you notice that Newsweek is at it again? This time it's the "decline and fall of Christian America". First it was Darwin's evolution and now it's religion. I'm afraid there's not much left to cling to. Well, take care of yourself. I was just dropping by to say hi. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

How does one "stumble" into a possible run for Admin when one is THE one that asked someone else to nominate them? - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 09:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It beats walking into doors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to walk into doors when you ask others to hold them open for you... - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 21:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Reminds me of a funny definition of "shin": "A device for finding furniture in the dark." which I think is from Ambrose Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary though I could be wrong. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)