This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jim Douglas (talk | contribs) at 22:35, 21 November 2006 (Steorn). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:35, 21 November 2006 by Jim Douglas (talk | contribs) (Steorn)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)If you want to discuss an article that I'm working on, please leave a message on its talk page. I should be monitoring that, and that will keep the article history with the article.
Otherwise, please click here to leave me a new message.
Military dolphins
Thanks for the message. Looks like you've done wonders with the USNMMP article. Great stuff. I agree that the two articles can exist separately - this may mean that the military dolphin will remain a bit stubby because a lot of specifics will go to the other article, but that's ok. Pcb21| Pete 07:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you!
Just wanted to say thanks for all your great work on Panama Canal. It's a world better after your reorganization and additions. Cheers. jengod 19:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Peer Review - U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program
You're welcome... its a great article and should be featured. Likewise, panama canal! --PopUpPirate 09:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program image alignment
With a second look I'm pretty sure I do agree with you that the text reads better with the images aligned right; I'm on the fence a little bit as well, since I think it is slightly boring, visual-wise, to have all the images on the same side of the article. Not enough of an issue, though, to sacrifice readability for... I think left-aligned images may work better set in with longer paragraphs, where they're not disrupting headers or bullet lists. In any case, it's not a big deal, so no worries about reverting the experiment. I do think the image of the Bottlenose dolphin might look better next to the list of animals trained in the program, since the picture of just the dolphin seems to be more directly illustrating the contents of that section than issues of animal welfare -- what do you think? — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 10:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- Good idea — done! — Johantheghost 17:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Ordnance Survey
No probs - you're voting on the article not the user :D Any help apprecriated *if* you get time. Thx! --PopUpPirate 21:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Marine mammals
Done. Cheers Tony 11:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Bounty Board
Greetings. You've recently been involved with working on get articles up to featured status, so I wanted to let you know about a new page, Misplaced Pages:Bounty board. People have put up monetary bounties for certain articles reaching featured status - if the article makes it, the bounty lister donates the stated amount of money to the Wikimedia Foundation. So you can work on making articles featured, and donate other people's money at the same time. If this sounds interesting, I hope you stop by. – Quadell 13:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
No worries!
Withdrew History of the Canal nom. Let me know when you feel comfortable with it and I'll be happy to renominate! :) jengod 19:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Fair use image
Hi. I'd like to point out that the image on your user page (Image:Johan the Ghost Braced.jpg) is eligible for deletion as of December 4th under Criteria for Speedy Deletion I/M5. Since your image is hosted on Misplaced Pages as Fair Use, it must be used in an article or be removed. If you're the owner of the image, I suggest changing the license to Public Domain ({{PD-self}}) or some alternative free license. The image will be deleted within 24 hours if the license remains unchanged. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. — Pathoschild 17:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Fair do's; can't really justify PD-Self. — Johantheghost 14:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Main Page
You've got my sympathy for having to face down that torrent of shit vandalism. Well done. Leithp (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Panama Canal
Glad to help. I've been intrigued by the early lock system idea, & what would have happened if they'd built it to start with. Seems like the French project ignored the mosquitoes & malaria entire. Suppose there's something to add on that? Or a link to/page on disease control on projects like the Canal? Trekphiler 15:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Leprechaun
Thanks for the feedback :) - FrancisTyers 21:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Panama Canal History
I rewrote "devestated Pacific Fleet" (it's a myth; at best, an exaggeration), & added the subs remark, for which I rely on Blair's Silent Victory; I'd source it, but couldn't quite see a separate heading for it alone. Trekphiler 13:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Hero of the Russian Federation
Hello. I was wondering if I met every point that you made at this page. Thank you for what you done so far. Zach 10:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Panama Canal
I fixed the link for you in the article. The MoS-L needs an update. That section is woefully out of sync with current trends in WP:FAC. What's mentioned there has given way to the footnote style about ten months back. None of the articles that pass through FAC these days have this style of referencing. (The exception being links present in infoboxes. These cannot be rendered.)
The problem is the abrupt change in the text if it is kept inline. Go to the print version of a page. (The link is on the left menubar). Notice that the URL is displayed along with the text. A reader, using a speech reader expects a smooth transition is suddenly fed the URL of the text to an external link which is hardly relevent in context. Now the Panama Canal Authority link is notable enough to merit a place in wikipedia and should be accordingly linked. Please note: I have always objected to having such links formatted inline, so this isn't something specific to this article. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Centennial Real Opening date
Thanks for your comments. I found the real opening date, September 2, 2005 on here The inauguration of this bridge was widely criticized because the new highways leading to it were not finished yet. The only reason it was inaugurated on August 15, 2004 was because President Mireya Moscoso was going to be out of office on September 1, 2004 and she didn't want her political rival, Martin Torrijos, the son of the man who ousted her husband Dr. Arnulfo Arias in 1968 to make that inauguration instead of her. I thank you for your hard work in these pages about my country, i hope i can help to improve them. Radioheadhst 16:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- so you're from Panama? I love Panama! Great place, and I hope I can get back there one day. I'm freezing in Scotland right now! — Yes, I am from Panama, so im enjoying some warmer weather than you over there! I find fascinating you have made all that research about Panama, I hope many more people learn more about Panama and visit us. Happy 2006 to you. Radioheadhst «Talk» 19:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Panama FAC
Hi, Johantheghost - nice job on Panama Canal... I'm impressed with how well you handle criticism!! Re your latest fixes of my objections: I'll check them later, it's 5 in the morning now so I'm going to bed! Looking forward to Mild object Support... Mikkerpikker 03:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Single-handed sailors
I hope my new category is self-explanatory enough: Category:Pole vaulters with seven or fewer toes. ;-) Seriously, thanks, I've obviously been living with the subject more than most people. — Johantheghost 01:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- No big. But if I hadn't gotten there by way of Donad Crowhurst—and I swear, even knowing plenty about Crowhurst, my first reaction was "but he had two hands!"— I would likely have added Admiral Nelson and Captain Hook. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Golden Globe Race
No problem about pasting over my article. I doubt there's anything in mine that isn't in yours. It'd be nice to put in an extract from the note which Moitessier catapulted onto the ship off Cape Town:
"My intention is to continue the voyage, still nonstop, toward the Pacific Islands, where there is plenty of sun and more peace than in Europe. Please do not think I am trying to break a record. "Record" is a very stupid word at sea. I am continuing non-stop because I am happy at sea, and perhaps because I want to save my soul".
Looks like you spent a lot longer on your one than I did. I'll start on ocean rowers. --CharlieP 00:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- I kind of disagree that Golden Globe should be a dab page, I think the situation works nicely with the notice at the top of Golden Globe Award. Having said that, if you get consensus (more than what is at the talk page you pointed me to) I will happily do the work needed (which is about 2 hours worth).--Commander Keane 02:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
FA
Panama Canal is now a featured article, well done! --DelftUser 19:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Congrats, amigo! Incedentally, thanks for all the help on the USS Wisconsin peer review, that article has also gone featured. TomStar81 02:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Editing Steve Fossett
I am working at the direction of Steve Fossett. It is my job. And you don't even know what his correct name is. Talk about VANDALISM. You are doing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PowersPhotos (talk • contribs)
Now cut it out...
I have been contributing to this article at the direction and correction of Steve himself. YOU are not providing the information (Including his name) in a way that he wants or is even correct. I AM NOT A VANDAL and I provided the picture of him. SO STOP IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PowersPhotos (talk • contribs)
*facepalm*
My bad. Corrected that now.Circeus 17:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
GeoRef
Hi There,
I came accross you question about GEOREF in the setion on MGRS.
I know very little on this topic, but I came accross the following reference today:
"The World GEOgraphic REFerence System is used for aircraft navigation"
See the following wesite: http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/curricula/giscc/units/u013/u013.html
Hope this is helpfull.
Craig — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.129.24.1 (talk • contribs)
- Thanks, Craig! BTW, we have an article on Georef now. — Johan the Ghost seance 11:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
<refs>-2006-02-18T15:38:00.000Z">
the <ref>s has recently become a recomended system for FAC, however, I do not think you should go converting articles you haven't been a main contributor to, as several editors still dislike it a lot (there are arguments for and against, althought I obviously think the for outweight the against), and a user was recently put on probation for a using a script to change ref style. (althoughtit might not have to do ith the wikicode used to create the refs).
Also, any such script is probably a Misplaced Pages:Bot, so you will need an approbation for it. Circeus 15:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)"> ">
Panamanian applique....
Nice work on Mola!--Rockero 23:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
February 23!!
The Panama Canal article will be Today's featured article on Feb. 23!! --DelftUser 19:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
That was a really good message
Hi
I really liked your response to anonymous "Messed up second section". May I copy it and use something like it to welcome other newcomers? (I am not much of an old-hand myself.)
Secondly, I notice elsewhere you respond to someone's trivia about the palindrome by saying there is no trivia section. I created one, and it got reverted straight back. I'll try again. If you like it, your support would be appreciated. Thanks for your work on this article.
BrainyBabe 15:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism on Panama Canal
Hi, Someone has messed up the sequence of primary and secondary headings in Panama Canal. I am not going to try and fix it because you are much more familiar with dealing with vandalism and reverting edits.. Regards Gregorydavid 20:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for the feedback. One day when you have some time you can tell me how you save all the good edits that land on a vandalised page. Regards Gregorydavid 21:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Kuna swastika
Hi, I read the webpage you refer to before I made my changes. It gives no visual examples of the "ancient" Kuna sign, so there is no evidence with which to compare the symbol on the flag with any symbol that was used indigenously before the international swastika craze. But the swastika on the flag is a classic Buddhist/Indian form in its geometry. If you look at the article you will see that the use of this form of the swastika expanded dramtically for use in the insignia in various countries over the period c1890-1930. The adoption by the Nazis was just one of many many examples during that period. They too claimed that was an "ancient German symbol". The expansion of use by the Navajo and other groups in this period follows exactly the same pattern. If you look at earlier Native American "swastikas", they are very rarely like this classic form. Since you are talking about the creation of an official flag for international usage here, your portayal of isolated Kuna peoples unaware of international influences does not quite work. This flag was created at a time when the claim to be in "natural" native possession of a swatika motif had great cultural significance.Paul B 11:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Dab.ing Halifax
Hi Johan, no prob with your change in circumnavigation, amending the Halifax link to Halifax, Nova Scotia (former city) -- if you think it fits better.
Unfortunately, I think that the pages there are badly structured, confusing the place with the structure of local government. It would make more sense to me to have a main page about 'Halifax, Nova Scotia' with secondary pages about the local govt.
As things stand, we have a choice between linking to the rather short Halifax, Nova Scotia (former city) page or the more comprehensive page at Halifax Regional Municipality, Nova Scotia. Neither seems ideal :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs)
Acronym templates
Regarding your message at User talk:William Allen Simpson; this topic appears to be a can of worms; I posted a comment regarding this immediately above yours.
I believe that there's a link to the discussion somewhere in that conversation. It looks like there's a whole load of tedious bickering going on amongst a particular group, and that the acronym pages and the like are getting messed around as a result.
Fourohfour 19:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I kind of got that impression. My main beef is with "unwritten" policies... I hope that doesn't happen here. Writing it down in a talk page doesn't count, specially when the talk page contains a hundred conflicting opinions (as those ones seem to). Greetings from snowy Inverness... — Johan the Ghost seance 01:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Commas in Panama Canal
Excessive commas do not make that line more readable. Look forward to my rectification of your overpunctuation shortly. Tomyumgoong 00:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Cape Agulhas
Hi, thanks for fixing the coordinates. Fractions of seconds can exist, but fractions of minutes must be reduced to seconds and fractions of seconds.. I know you have reliable sources. Do you know the wording on the brass plate? What about my discussion regarding erosion of coastline?, ie proof of currents.. Regards, Gregorydavid 07:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I was thinking aloud when I added the note about the coordinates. I will be looking at other coordinates in due course.
Prevailing currents
The 1:30000 google images are close enough to see the impact of the currents on the coastline. If one goes too close then it can be confusing. The National Sea Rescue Institute (NSRI) of South Africa consists of volunteers who are very familiar with the entire coastline.Gregorydavid 13:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Replies
Hi, how do you link replies and user talk? Is there a sensible way to link article discussions and user talk? Thanks Gregorydavid 13:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, yes I agree one does sometimes have a private discussion with a user, but it is better to use the article discussion page for all article related talk so that everyone finds it quickly.. I shall go and see what has "happened" before I say more.. Cheers, Gregorydavid 06:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
sorry
Not trying to be a Dink... sorry about the links. I'm beginning to figure out what this is about. I have added a new page to develop info on my subject of interest. Am i permitted to link to my homepage and other site of interest in the external links on a subject I create? Hydrofoil_Multihulls I have seen external links that are for promotion and infomation in Wikipdia on many subjects. user:Buildboats
Thanks much
I look forward to contributing to Misplaced Pages and people like you make being a beginner not so scary... These short cuts are going to take a while to embed in my little confused mind (Buildboats 17:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC))
Clipper routes
Hi, what about shipping before the clipper existed? See Portugese, Dutch and East Indiaman Götheborg. Cheers 198.54.202.226 19:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC) its me Gregorydavid 19:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Clipper route map
Hi Johantheghost, I notice on the image that you uploaded at http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:ClipperRoute.png, 'Sydney' is incorrectly spelt 'Sidney'. I thought it would be easier for you to change as you have the source image. Regards -- Chuq 02:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
How to read coordinates off google satelite images?
Hi, do you know how to pick up coordinates off google images? I need this so that I can direct users to specific places. Thanks, Gregorydavid 07:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Rack railway, Panama Canal Mules?
I don't know whether this really fits here, but the mules on the Panama Canal run on a rack railway. — Johantheghost 11:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Please see my replies back in Panama Canal Mules?.
--Peter Horn 16:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Re: Sunday Times Golden Globe Race
Sure, I'll be happy to take a look at it. I'll do it as soon as I get some more time, probably either later today or tomorrow evening at the soonest. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
If it's still around this weekend, I may devote some time to it. My first impressions: very, very interesting subject and well-written. Move the table to the bottom. I'm not happy with the over-reliance of a single source though, and if that source is all there is out there right now, then this might be a topic that's not ready for FA yet. But don't quote me on that. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've started reading it and made some minor corrections, but on account of my tiredness I'll finish later, probably tomorrow. Looks good so far. Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I haven't had as much time as I would like to do a thorough job of reading the article yet; I promise that I haven't forgotten and will get to it as soon as time permits. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your understanding and (hopefully) I'll get to it soon! Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've left some comments at the FAC page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- No problem, and congratulations! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Hooray! About time it got promoted! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Tonnage
Hi Johan,
Tonnage in the modern sense is solely a measure of volume. Weight measures (such as displacement) are no longer referred to as 'tonnage'. (See Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers text books). What is required is a definition of Lightship, Deadweight and Displacement. Once I figure out how to do that I will add definitions. Currently Lightship refers you to the wrong definition - that is a Light-ship (i.e. : navigation light on a ship). The weight terms lightship and deadweight are sub-parts of displacement. Lightship is the weight of the ship and deadweight is the weight of everything it carries (ex: fuel, cargo, crew, provisions, etc.).
I rather like the idea of Wiki and hope it gets used in a constructive manner. What is required is a greater effort to reference accepted text of specific subjects to ensure Misplaced Pages is collecting facts and not just a lot of opinions.
Cheers, John
Sunday Times Golden Globe Race FAC
Sorry I didn't get a chance to review it. I somehow got logged out of my profile and didn't realize untill today, when I saw your message. Congrats on its promotion. - The Catfish 18:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
American alligator
yep i tried to nominate it - if i fucked it up it'd be great if you could sort it out Ben Payton
Tonnage
Johan,
I agree with the changes you made to the Tonnage entries to a point. Tonnage has become a very specific term used in a number of industries (ex: mining, refrigeration, marine). The entry only deals with the marine definition (is there anyway of explaining that in the entry?). In a marine context, using 'tonnage' when referring to weight or mass is incorrect and should be noted as such. I am not sure if adding the superseded uses of the word enhances the entry. Perhaps an entry on displacement with the explanation on its constituent parts (Deadweight & Lightship) would be warranted. This entry could then be linked from the tonnage entry. I'll review the Misplaced Pages references and try and figure out what the intent is. Please review the changes I have made and let me know if this retains the necessary intent as you see it.
I would very much like to add references but it is honestly beyond my Wiki expertise. I think I should try build an entry from scratch to get a better feel for the various controls (Would it be appropriate to plagiarize style from a similar entry? - guidance appreciated!). Nonetheless ... here are two good references for tonnage : 1) "The Oxford Companion To Ships & The Sea", Peter Kemp, 1979, Oxford University Press 2) "Ship Design and Construction", Thomas Lamb, 2004, Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (http://www.sname.org/newsletter/VOLIITOC.pdf)
Cheers, John
Re: Help
Response left at Misplaced Pages:Help_desk#Template_.2F_feature_for_expandable_box.3F.—G.He 00:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Sunday Times Golden Globe Race was a great read. Thanks for writing it. JayW 02:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates
Then the problem is one of gross miscommunication/misinterpretation, because as I told you, the idea of running two parallel wikis was never on the table. (Maybe it was after Worldtraveller created the static versions page, but for most of the discussion, the page was not existent and I was clearly referring to the plan outlined at WP:STABLE.) The quotes you gave are ambiguous and could go either way. Some sort of stable version has to be the way to go, with an "official" foreground stable version and a background "unstable" wiki version... - Does this not even imply that the unstable one is the wiki, and the stable version is uneditable (or at least, not a wiki - though the two are pretty much the same for our purposes here). A stable site, not wiki, mind you. Don't confuse the two. the fact that it's done via a wiki is secondary. If a stable version would help to produce a better encyclopaedia, it would be totally in accord with the ideals of Misplaced Pages. - does this not again clearly state that the stable version would not be editable while the unstable one would remain the Misplaced Pages we know and love? Maybe the error was that we both neglected to clearly spell out the definitions of terms we were using - a wiki is not a site which can be edited by anyone, anonymous or otherwise. A wiki is a site which allows many people (who don't necessarily have to be just anyone; an organisation might only allow members to edit its wiki, for instance) to edit it. A site which is not a wiki would obviously not be editable at all by a collective group of people, which was the whole point.
Remember, the idea simply is that Misplaced Pages stays as normal, but we create a stable version of selected articles so that while the unstable version can fall apart in a bitter edit war, readers can still find the article helpful by visiting the stable version. Most of your objections are total strawmen because nobody is proposing two parallel wikis - any changes made to the stable version would have to appear on the unstable version first. All our work would continue to go to the unstable version; the stable version exists more for the readers.
As for inflammatory comments, I fail to see how referring to ideas as "overwhelmingly crap" does not fall under such a heading. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone? Johnleemk | Talk 14:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Considering that the original phrase used was "stable versions", I don't think it would be too much for one to assume that what we had in mind was the stable versions proposal (which has been around for what seems like forever). I didn't have Worldtraveller's ideas in mind specifically, considering I believe it was Taxman who first used the phrase "stable versions" in our discussion.
- The idea for stable versions is that the stable site will essentially be editable in the same sense that CNN.com or Google.com is editable; only certain people (probably admins) will be allowed to edit. Even then, this will only be to sync the stable version with the unstable one; they should never make normal edits as we would expect had they been editing the normal Misplaced Pages.
- The contradiction you think you have found isn't one at all (although since it's 1.30 in the morning here perhaps my sleepless brain is missing the logical inconsistency). Assuming Misplaced Pages:The perfect article could even be possibly created, it is not by any stretch of the imagination impossible to imagine it falling apart if it remains open to editing (indeed, if it has achieved perfection, by definition, the only way to go is down). The rationale for stable versions is that while we sort out new issues that can lead to an article being turned into a construction zone with rubble everywhere, the readers can still turn to a somewhat outdated but nevertheless easier to read stable version of the same article.
- I didn't know I was expected to create process on the fly here; I assumed we were discussing merely why (or why not) stable versions would be a good idea for Misplaced Pages (and our featured articles). Anyhow, WP:STABLE (at least, when I checked it a few days ago) outlines a procedure whereby people "vote" on whether a particular revision of an article on the unstable version should become the article on the stable version. That's basically how it goes. There's no need to look at the diffs (although there will definitely be some people doing that, since any article with enough people caring about it to nominate and second it would have at least one dedicated contributor) - what's important is the article as it stands.
- I don't pull punches when talking about objects; the "crap" assertion is demonstrably true, as some editors' (namely Carnildo's) travails with the random article function have shown. I'm not sure what I was supposed to say that wouldn't be "negative"; unworthy? inadequate? not compliant with our standards? articles nobody cares about? Anyway, putting that aside, it's also been proven by some nifty stats someone (I think it was Kim Bruning or Gmaxwell) found that most of our articles don't get much attention paid to them. As a result, they are less likely to be subject to the content disputes that are the main rationale for stable versions, and also less likely to have reader interest. The articles we're looking to preserve in stable versions are those which will be immensely popular with the public and those of sufficiently high quality (such as FAs) that there's a good chance future edits would degrade them.
- As for the personal attack, I was exasperated, considering we seemed to be talking past each other instead of actually communicating. That doesn't justify it, and so I apologise. Johnleemk | Talk 17:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, no problem about the delay in response. :) I'm of the view that we shouldn't be so conservative about restricting edits to FAs, but at the same time, it's difficult to find a means of ensuring that editors don't chuck all that work out. (To cite on example I was involved with, it was recently agreed that the section on literary attributes of the King James Version of the Bible had totally degraded from its version at the time of featuring; as a result, all subsequent edits to the section were reverted.) It is my opinion that editors can make many helpful edits to a featured article. The problem is that at the same time there is a class of FAs which would not be improved by the average edit. The issue at hand now IMO is distinguishing between "perfect" FAs and "imperfect" ones. There's also the fact that at the same time, one of our most touted benefits is that our articles are constantly up to date, and getting a "supereditor" to make such updates would be somewhat m:instruction creepy. (Although one possibility would be temporarily unquasiprotecting the article for the time being.) There's also the fact that "supereditors" as things stand are a rarity on Misplaced Pages, and some of the most super (e.g. Lord Emsworth, if I'm not mistaken) have left/are rather inactive. I have a feeling that if we just quasiprotected FAs, what we'd end up with is a sandbox for normal editors - which would effectively be a more cruder implementation of stable versions.
- This is why I think the stable versions idea as it stands is a good one. It provides an incentive for editors to ensure their edits to the unstable version are of high calibre, because otherwise they won't be included in the stable version. If you want the stable version to progress, you must first ensure progress on the unstable version. Another thing is that it's not just FAs we should limit our scope to; well-read and controversial articles suffer from the same kind of issues. It's not nice, IMO, for readers to visit Roman Catholic Church and have the first thing they see is three {{merge}} tags. It's time we started limiting backend processes of Misplaced Pages out of sight of readers; they don't have to be hidden, and we ought to advertise them, but nevertheless, for controversial and popular articles, the first thing people should see is a decent (if a bit outdated) article on the subject.
- The idea that only supereditors should be able to sync an unstable version with the stable one is a good one, though. A few problems that could arise from it, however, are (for instance) editors who have a problem co-operating with others. They might want to push through a version that only they like, and others disapprove of. This could lead to messy wars on the stable version. Still, I suppose the same caveat applies if we only let admins sync versions. However, this way, we could have a rule that only uninvolved admins would be allowed to make the call. Finding an uninvolved supereditor, with the lack of supereditors as things stand, would be rather difficult, on the other hand.
- While like any editor who takes pride in their work, I would like for us to be able to maintain the unstable articles to as high a standard as possible, I think we must remember that it's the final product - the encyclopaedia - that counts. In my opinion, the stable versions will be able to form a good set of encyclopaedia articles our readers can count on, and that's what's most important. The unstable version will have warts and all, but at least we can rest assured that our readers won't have to worry themselves about these articles too much. The unstable articles can be sorted out just like we currently sort them out - the good old fashioned eventualist way. Johnleemk | Talk 17:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- No, it seems the error is on my end. My point was that creating supereditors, if based only on the criterion on whether someone has helped significantly write/nominate an FA or not, would result in significantly fewer people authorised to make modifications than if we just gave supereditor access to every admin. I don't think we have anywhere near close to 800 FA writers yet.
- In my proposal, for any article to get a new stable version approved, it would be necessary for some broad-based support. In my experience, many articles (including those that have degraded significantly) have people interested in discussing the article or dipping in now and then, but not in making the wholesale edits necessary. These people should be enough to ensure that even the most ardent newbies won't be able to push through a significantly deteriorated article. It'll also provide an additional incentive for editors to work on improving the article; if they don't, the stable version never progresses. An admin would make the final judgement on whether an article should have a new revision promoted to stable, and even so, there would be some considerable discretionary leeway given (on a similar level as that given to admins closing AfDs). There's no need for admins or supereditors to approve every edit made to an article by anons (in the first place, you assume that it is anons who contribute most significantly to the problem, which from my experience, is not true).
- It is of course true that this proposal is more of a reactive cure than a preventive remedy, but it's significantly better than anything we have now. The only way I can think of preventing low-quality edits would be to penalise poor editors, which isn't exactly what we ought to be doing, even now. I think this problem can only be fixed through culture. Currently there are a lot of misconceptions about what Misplaced Pages is, or what an article should/can have. People don't recognise trivia sections as poor writing as long as similar sections proliferate wherever they turn. This can't be addressed directly through a top-down policy; what we can do is start a grassroots bottom-up movement to improve our implicit and informal editorial standards, in the same way we've managed to ingrain in people that citing sources is a good thing. The challenge, of course, is that combatting bad writing without getting on people's nerves is a lot harder than simply asking for sources.
- I'm not familiar with the details of the stable versions proposal, but I think there's nothing wrong with allowing anons to continue editing. The question of whether the stable version should be the first thing a reader sees depends, really. On the one hand, even our best articles occasionally have minor errors (spelling, etc.) that anons tend to fix. On the other, there is sometimes no clear gain to an individual article from being editable by anons. Still, anonymous editing is (from what I know) a major hook for people. I started editing anonymously, and little can be more frustrating than being unable to edit popular articles simply because I'm anonymous. It's not for any philosophical reasons that people like me didn't/don't register; we're just lazy. We need to see how addictive Misplaced Pages is before we can be drawn in enough to register.
- I used to consider myself immediatist, but more and more I see the benefits of an eventualist viewpoint. Misplaced Pages not only will never be finished, but it isn't even close to being finished. That makes the eventualist viewpoint important, since there's no point getting stressed about minor peripheral issues when major structural ones have yet to be dealt with. At the same time, parts of Misplaced Pages are often close to being finished, but due to diminishing returns, end up retrograding. So in the end, you need to have a balance between eventualism and immediatism. Johnleemk | Talk 16:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Hull Speed
Johan,
I seem to have entered into one of the minefields of Misplaced Pages. A well-meaning yet somewhat mis-informed fellow has taken umbrage at the modifications I had made to the Hull speed article. The changes I made were undone (ok) and the original article has been ineffectually re-worked by the original author. I have given as much argument to this gentle person as I am willing to commit to the subject and I'm wondering what the correct course of action is at this point as I see no profit in entering into an editing battle over such a trivial subject (or any other subject for that matter).
I appreciated the manner in which the Tonnage article was addressed and seek your guidance on how to proceed in this matter.
Cheers, Jmvolc 02:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Panama Portal
Hey Johan, Just created the Panama Portal, added a link to the portal to your great Panama Canal article and put that article on the selected article section of the portal. As you are so interested on Panama topics, your input and wikipedia experience could be really useful on expanding the portal, as I am still learning. I hope you like the basic work I did. Radioheadhst(talk) 16:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm appaled
I am appaled at your proposal to ban all ip edits. If we are to do this, what is to make Misplaced Pages any better then another online encyclopedia. This encyclopedia is, in my personal opinion, a wonder of the world. This is the closest anyone has gotten to putting all of the world's knowledge. Misplaced Pages is so great because of the fact that it is so easy to edit. I am a student, and I remember my first edit on WIkipedia. I was linked to Misplaced Pages from google and saw the edit link, and I was like: "No F***'n way is this as easy as it looks" So I go to the edit page and decide to see if it works. I type " yo mama is gay" and click save page. It worked, and I became in love with Misplaced Pages. Vandalism can lead to people becoming Users. False Prophet 02:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
NiceCategoryList - not updating
Hi, I'm using your NCL extension which I like very much. Unfortunately it doesn't update automatically. I order to have no pages showing up on a list using NCL in need to click edit and then save the page. What can I do have this working automatically? Your help would be appreciated very much.
Your extension is used on an intranet wiki. You can find me on meta: metawikipedia:User:Pamima
BTW: The link to your page on meta is not working. I hope you are the user I was looking for. 19:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
FP nomination
Just wanted to inform you, I've nominated your SmokeCeilingInLochcarron.jpg for Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates. That must've been something amazing to witness, and I'm glad you photographed it so appealingly.--Father Goose 11:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Steorn
Hi! Thanks for the clarification, and I apologize if my revert message came across as a bit impatient. I just took a look at the link, and it's true that someone mentions April Fools' Day there, but the "someone" is just a random poster to a blog, so it's not a valid citation for a Misplaced Pages article. (But if, say, the Times of London or the Economist were to make the same observation, then it would be fair game.) If you haven't read Talk:Steorn, check it out -- at different times, the article has been accused of both acting as an advertisement for Steorn and calling the whole thing an outright fraud. Trying to keep the article somewhat neutral is a constant struggle. -- Jim Douglas (contribs) 22:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)