Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Piotrus (talk | contribs) at 23:28, 16 November 2005 (→Re:[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Deleted discussions up to September 2005:

Synod of Dordrecht

I saw you reverted my edits. The fact that a certain abbreviation is commonly used, does not mean it should be the name of an entry in Wiki. See my comments on the Talk page. Please share your views there, txs; DocendoDiscimus 12:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Antarctica

Hi Eugene, thank you very much for the Eubot-generated subpages at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Antarctica. I have altered the first of these subpages (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Antarctica/A1) because I think it would be useful to mention the page Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Antarctica at the beginning of each subpage generated by Eubot. Could you/Eubot generate all subpages again with a Wiklink to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Antarctica included at the top of each page? (The reason why I suggest this is because if someone wants to create a new page and checks the "Whatlinkshere"-List and accesses one of the subpages (for example Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Antarctica/A1), it may be important to know that there is also a main page with instructions (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Antarctica)), something you do not see unless you check the Whatlinkshere-page again (as I did). -- Citylover 16:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for letting User:Eubot include the heading. I have posted some more suggestions for User:Eubot on the page Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Antarctica. I have also added more abbrevations on the page Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Antarctica for User:Eubot to convert. -- Citylover 11:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Really great work what Eubot has done! Better than a human being now! (Some tiny mistakes are still there and I have had only a quick look, more on the talk page Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Antarctica) -- Citylover 20:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Removal of picture

You´ve just removed the link to the image (image:Niterói_Itacoatiara_Beach.jpg) from the article about this brazillian beach Itacoatiara. I think that the image should have been marked as lacking it´s source before you took the drastic action of deleting it´s reference, and only removed if noone took the time to correct it after a while (either by providing the source or by changing the picture for one with a known allowed source). It just seems too dictatorial to remove it rigth away from the article just because some lazy wikipedian forget to provide it´s source. Please, warn first then let some time for wikipedians like me to correct their incomplete work before deleting it from wikipedia :-) All right, in the future I swear I´ll never forget to "use the source"... regards Loudenvier 21:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi again Eugene, now I understand perfectly why you had to remove the picture from the article (I was not too serious about my previous "complaint", I´m not bothered to try and to learn to make Misplaced Pages better): I´ve added the main article to my "watchlist", but when the picture it refers to was tagged as "not having source information", it wasn´t reflected in "my watchlisting", so I undertand thata the only effective way to "warn" someone who cares about the article was to remove the picture, and hope someone would notice it on his/her watchlist. I think it could be a new feature suggestion for the next iteration of Media Wiki software: an option to add to your watchlist everything "inside" the article (mainly the pictures), since pictures are actually article content, any changes on their pages should be reflected back in the main article. In the meantime I will try to find and translate the notice in the UFF photo archive to properly mark the picture as public domain. By the way, thanks for the help with the signature thing. best regards, Loudenvier 14:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from further violations of Gdansk Vote

Also : "important is by which name the city is known in English in that period." That is not what it says in the vote-you need English reference material with the name that is all. http://www.fiu.edu/~mirandas/bios1523.htm LUZJAÑSKI, Fabian (ca. 1470-1523)

Birth. Ca. 1470, Królewiec, Poland. --Molobo 21:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Alderaan fair use

Why would Image:Alderaan destroyed.jpg not be fair use? It's small, low-res, one frame from a movie, of the subject of the article. ~~ N (t/c) 00:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Plant taxobox pics

Thanks for addng so many new pics! One small request - could you use a 240/250px size, that is the semi-standard for taxobox pics; the smaller 200px size is not always large enough to accomodate long names in the taxobox, leaving unsightly white margins at the sides of the pic - thanks, MPF 23:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Drente / Drenthe

In your list List_of_towns_in_Drente, the province is also referred to as "Drenthe" with an aitch. Should the spelling be consistent, or does it not matter? Reyk 07:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Image deletion process

Hi Eugene,

Just so you know, there are probably holes in the current image deletion process. It could be an isolated glitch, but I've just noticed that Image:NaturalHistoryMuseumInterior01.jpg got deleted earlier this month. Actually all that caught my attention was the gap in one of my image galleries. As with 90% of the other pictures I've uploaded, it was actually self authored and so required no source link. However, somewhat oddly, looking at the image's deleted edit history, it appears as if the original upload didn't contain my standard cc-by-sa boilerplate.

Also somewhat to my surprise, it looks like that image wasn't on my watchlist - most likely it fell through the gap (now fixed I believe) in which images aren't automatically added to your watchlist if you enter a complete description in the image upload page and don't subsequently edit it. As such non of the notices added to the image page attracted my attention.

In any case either something went wrong when I did that image upload, or there is a wider problem in the database. If I get a chance, I'll check some of the other images I uploaded around that time. In any case, the move away from dropping a note on the image uploader's talk page could be a retrograde step - on the other hand I appreciate that tidying up dodgy uploads is a headache and streamlining the task is probably for the best. -- Solipsist 20:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Dutch pea soup image

But, but, but... the article says "You should be able to stand a spoon upright in a good pea soup."

-)

Dpbsmith (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice work on the Alabama red-bellied turtle and its cousins

I saw the taxobox you added, and the disambiguation page. I noticed that Wikispecies isn't complete enough to find these turtles there. Do you work on Wikispecies, too?—GraemeMcRae 07:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:New_Zealand_flag-Lockwood.png

Hi Eugene and Tagisgsimon, sorry I missed this earlier, why was this image deleted? I confirmed the licence did I not? Direct from the author. http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Undelete/Image:New_Zealand_flag-Lockwood.png In any case can we undelete it? Cheers, Christiaan 18:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Re:Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Halibutt

You wrote: I've looked at it some more, and to be fair, most of the problematic contributions to the black book came from Wiktacy; Halibutt's edits seem to indicate his intentions were good. I do still think a page like that is a bad idea, but I won't hold it against him too much. In view of this, can you reconsider your vote (objection) - or at least strike out the parts that are no longer relevant in your position? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand your point - you don't know him well enough to support - but you know him well enough to object? That puzzles me a lot. Especially as editors who have worked on articles with him, with one exception, seem to support him (or at least vote neutral; and note he is supported not only by Polish editors but by Germans and Russian as well, to name a few - this should resolve any doubts about him being a Polish POV pusher). As for use of Polish language, it is not that common and restricted (with a few exceptions) to our personal talk pages and matters which wouldn't involve other editors. As Halibutt's points out, if we wanted to keep something secret, we would have used IMs or emails, not left 'suspicous' messages that anybody can translate with Babelfish at wiki :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)