This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AerobicFox (talk | contribs) at 03:34, 12 December 2010 (→Concerning the Sexual poll topic: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:34, 12 December 2010 by AerobicFox (talk | contribs) (→Concerning the Sexual poll topic: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is Ianmacm's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Audio
Well, I think my help qualified me more for a maniac barnstar, but since I don't think we have one available, I guess this one'll do :) Anyway, if you need my ears for anything else in the future, please don't hesitate to drop a note. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 13, 2010; 13:12 (UTC)
Smolensk crash
Hi! I hope that you will be understand specific sytuation in east Europe.Remember all in this crash is big (very big) secret. The Soviets also tried for 60 years to conceal the murders at Katyn... Finally freedom and true win! But I remeber times when for true about Katyn massacreCommunists can kill you in Poland or Russia. It was forbidden. September 17, 1939 they attacked us from the east along with you when we fought against Hitler. They said they were going to trigger ... Do not be so sure about Russia and always try frind compromise bettwen Poland and Russia but please do not trust newspapers only russian! Greetings! --Swd (talk) 09:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- All that I have done here is to follow Misplaced Pages guidelines, as discussed on the talk page. The article 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash is in a hiatus at the moment, because the final report is due to be published in a few weeks' time. All Wikipedians can do is to reflect the material that has been published by reliable sources. I have tried to avoid edit warring over the lamps, but the consensus is that they are not a major issue and that the news story cited is too speculative.--♦IanMacM♦ 10:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Oliver Heaviside
Hello
I am new to Misplaced Pages so sorry if I have made a mistake.
I edited an article on Oliver Heavyside I while back and when i looked today my edit was gone. I edited it again but it has gone again and it appears that it is you that is removing it. Can I ask why?
Regards
Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanzadan (talk • contribs) 14:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Material added to Misplaced Pages needs to be verifiable. This was removed: "Heaviside died whilst living at in his aunts home in lower warberry road in Torquay Devon it was called Homefield and was later to become a hotel called the EL Marino. This closed in 1995 and has be left to become derelict by its current owner. The building is grade 2 listed and can still be identified by the Institution of Electrical Engineers blue plaque installed in May 1967 on the drive enterance." Some of this is correct, eg the house was in Lower Warberry Road and there is a plaque outside. Some of it is not so easy to verify. The best source for the life of Heaviside is Paul Nahin's biography. I'll have a look at how much of this text can be verified through the book, and also Alan Heather's book.--♦IanMacM♦ 14:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. OK now I understand. Well I used to live at the Torquay property in around 1988 at the time it was a hotel called El Marino. My parents owned it. In 2007 I went to look at the place and it was totally derelict. I actually got in contact with Alan Heather at the time to try and find out more on the history of the place. He responded with a huge amount of information and pictures. So the information I have provided was from him and research I have done myself. I have news paper articles from the herald express in Devon that did an article on Homefeild back in 2007.
If you need further info or proof then Allen was my main source of information and he would be happy to help I am sure.
Regards
Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanzadan (talk • contribs) 14:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
re: only warning
Oh noes! the horror!
Fuck off, will you?
--129.93.241.135 (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sad sad sad, get a life, you obviously need better things to do.--♦IanMacM♦ 17:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Funny, i'm not the wikipedia editor.
- I love it when people pretend like their admins. so much fun.
--129.93.241.135 (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
WikiLeaks
"nonsense" is quite subjective. It's not so nonsensical from my perspective, which would constitute it as verifiable. Misplaced Pages facts driven by opinions...glorious —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hankybro21 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Nice try, but this was vandalism, pure and simple.--♦IanMacM♦ 09:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Concerning the Sexual poll topic
On the poll you posted: "Most of this is common sense, and needs to be in writing as a formal policy."
I just want to mention that there is already formal policy dealing with this that states:
Censorship
"Files and other materials which are not lawful for Commons to host on its servers in Florida will be deleted immediately upon being identified as illegal"
and that files
Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose
"Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose"
The proposed policy is a bit confusing in that it can appear as though there is currently not established official policies(as well as official guidelines commons:COM:PORN) that discuss the issue of sexual content.
Under current policy an image which is not obviously illegal (it's unclear whether it is porn or erotic art, etc) or whether an image may or may have "educational purpose" is decided on a case by case basis.
One of the major differences the new proposed policy proposes which myself and others object to is officially extending the criteria for "speedy deletions" to now include legality and relevance, which those in opposition feel should be handled through a deletion discussion and not through speedy deletion which is normally reserved for obvious vandalism, etc.
A while back there was a mass deletion of sexual content which is what triggered this issue. The situation can be read about here
If through reading the proposed policy you were unaware that current policy already exists on this then please accept my request to consider reviewing the current proposal with existing policy, and to reconsider your position. To members like myself this is a very important issue. If you still support the current proposal you do not need to be concerned with me bothering you with trying to change your mind. If you already knew all this then please feel free to ignore this. Oh, and Merry Christmas.AerobicFox (talk) 03:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)