Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sapphic (talk | contribs) at 04:02, 2 April 2009 (→Misplaced Pages:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll/Autoformatting_responses). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Follow the Misplaced Pages:Simplified Ruleset
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 20:53, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Doping (semiconductor)

Good job on the doping article! Many of the details of diffusion rates etc. had escaped me, as I've only had the most basic education in this area.

If you would care to expand the III-V section of the article, I think that could use some attention as well.

--Joel 22:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Ipswich

I've done something with Ipswich re that image, it's better, but still looks odd, but that's due to the lack of text in the surrounding paragraphs: so feel free to edit the Ipswich article yourself. Alf 12:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

OSS

Hi Phil, I added OSI back to "see also" under Amdocs. Objective Systems Integrators is similar to Amdocs since we are an OSS developer. Our OSS framework is NETeXPERT. We've been around for 2 decades. Would it be better to create a new header with a list of OSS vendors? Thanks, Andrew Lee.

I deleted your addition because it looks very much like you'd added a link to a company with which you're associated. This would seem to breach http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest. The link it points to is a page where you appear to be the major contributor. At the time I deleted the link, your company's wiki page was also marked for deletion as non-notable, which would back up the assertion that the link should not have been there. It seems to me that you are advertising your own company, which would be a breach of Wiki guidelines.--Phil Holmes (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

2009 Formula One season

Your information has been removed again because it is uncited. It is not my responsibility to confirm if references exist for statements you added without citations, twice. If you wish to add information to any article about a future event (see WP:CRYSTAL), please do not be lazy and take the time to properly cite it. Since you seem ot be reading the new regulations, you should be more than able to cite this statement. The359 (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

A major rule change for a future season of a motorsport is inherently "debatable" since it is ignorant to assume that everyone is aware of all technical regulations and their changes from season to season. A citation is especially necessary for a future sport as, "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable" (WP:CRYSTAL) Therefore, verify that these are in fact changes that have taken place by citing your source. A talk page message telling another user to "look them up in the regulations" is not verification.

Also, "which appear to be front wings" appears to be a bit of OR. Either these supposed rule changes discuss front wings or they don't. What they may appear to be specifically discussing doesn't necessarily belong. The359 (talk) 07:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Douglas Robert Hadow

Hi Phil. Thanks for the amendment. Would it be possible for you to take a pic or scan of that family tree and post it online somewhere (Commons?) so that the change can be verified? Re. the family tree, does it call our man Douglas Robert Hadow or Robert Douglas Hadow? I've seen both versions given. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've uploaded an excerpt of the tree showing the relevant information at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/HadowTree.png. Please let me know if you need more information.

I actually started looking at the Hadow family tree because one of my relatives was a butler to Henry Hadow, and it's become a bit of an obsession tracking them all down. You don't happen to know the name of the great grandfather of Pen Hadow (Rupert Nigel Pendrill Hadow) by any chance? --Phil Holmes (talk) 14:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. I've put a ref to the family tree in the Douglas Hadow article. Re Pen's distant relation, sorry I haven't a clue, but you might try asking this chap who is a mine of such information. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I found out a couple of hours after asking. It's Arthur de Salis Hadow, a brother of Douglas Robert. --Phil Holmes (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah good. A possible connection with Bondo or Soglio? Ericoides (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Took me a while to find it, but no. I reckon it's a homage to a colleague at P&O. See http://www.poships.co.uk/PO%20Chairmen.html --Phil Holmes (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No relationship to the Soglio Salises then? Ericoides (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe so --Phil Holmes (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll/Autoformatting_responses

Regarding your comment in opposition to date autoformatting, I'd like to point out that autoformatting and autolinking are two different issues. It's currently possible to autoformat dates without having them be linked, and there are further improvements that have been proposed that would allow both of those options to be specified as individual, independent preference settings, and to use the existing date syntax to enable those features. --Sapphic (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In my oppose, I said that it's used as a justification for excessive linking, and I have seen that and therefore believe it to be true. --Phil Holmes (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm trying to let you know that the date linking and date autoformatting can be disentangled from each other. It's now possible to have dates autoformat without having them be linked. There are further plans to fix a lot more of the problems with the current autoformatting system, pending the outcome of the poll. If you're opposed to autoformatting in general (and not just the older version that'd been in place up until a month or so ago, or whenever User:Werdna committed his patch) then could you clarify your reasons on the poll page, so nobody will question the results? If you're only opposed to having dates be linked, then would you please consider the specific question of autoformatting, independently of that, and then clarify and/or change your position on the poll page? Or just ignore this request entirely, it's up to you; I won't bug you about it anymore. --Sapphic (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)