Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:44, 12 July 2007

If you're here to respond to a comment I posted on your talk page, feel free to reply on your talk page (so the question and answer are together). I ALWAYS watch talk pages I've posted comments to for a while. If you leave me a message, I'll respond here unless you ask me not to.

Archive2007 - Archive2006 - Archive2005 - Archive2004

Monty Hall

Hi Rick, G-guy uses AWB to give ratings to article, so he probably didn't see the star. Bplus is the highest rating that one can give to a previously unrated article, so that is what he chose. Don't worry, he wasn't trying to downrate the article. :)--Cronholm 04:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi - It's not a big deal - just seemed a little curious. The article just went through a FAR a month or two ago. It's certainly not perfect, but B+ seemed a little harsh. BTW, as always, improvements would be welcomed (although this particular article is perhaps a little more difficult than most since it seems to bring up such strong reactions). -- Rick Block (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite a few people have been curious about the ratings, so far about 2,500 articles have been rated by G-guy's push. The B+ was actually a compliment, as it was the highest rating he could give, GA, A, and FA all require review (as you are probably well aware of :) ). As for the improvements, I am no statistician, but we have a few at WT:WPM, you might want to drop a line there. Cheers--Cronholm 04:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears that I was wrong, G-guy replied on his talk page.--Cronholm 11:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

My problem with the lead before is that it wasn't a WP:LEAD; it didn't summarize the article, rather introduced concepts not covered in the article body. It looks like a lead should look now, but that's probably because the article now covers the concepts, so the lead now summarizes. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

formatting

Hi - I've reformatted some of the articles you've changed using a simpler markup, for example see Arapahoe at Village Center (RTD). I believe the intent of the table at the bottom is that the table remain at the bottom regardless of how much text is ultimately added to the article. The way you've been doing these (incorporating the image with the table inside a larger table) makes the image float to the bottom. It's not a big deal, but I thought I'd drop by and let you know why I've been redoing your changes. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Rick,

I don't know if I am responding to this in the correct fashion so that you will see it. But on the assumption you do, i really do not appreciate your edits. The pages look like crap again. "I believe the intent of the table at the bottom is that the table remain at the bottom" -- number one the tables are not that informative. If someone is coming to view a page about a particular station, why is the most prominent object there a table that is more has more info about the preceding or following station. Plus the table is confusing anyway.

If you want the table to float to the bottom that's fine, but in doing your edits you have deleted photos that in some cases were there before I even reformatted anything. You ever heard of the expression that a picture is worth a thousand words... why are limiting the photos... it's not like these are huge bloated pages.

If you don't like what i did why don't you at least put all the photos back up and try and format them in a way that is at least somewhat visually appealing, instead of the mess that it is now?

I guess this is a good example of no good deed goes unpunished. This is the first and last time i will contribute my time to wikipedia.

Replied at User talk:Mobyll. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll respond in more detail later, but the general reason I deleted images from the articles was that the deleted images were either substantially identical to the image I left in the article or were (IMO) not that helpful. Anyone is free to add them back - following the basic premise of this site that it reflects the collaborative editing efforts of anyone who comes across it. The intent is to create an encyclopedia, not a travel site (and certainly not a host for personal photos).

Are you still thinking you won't contribute? Do you still want this page deleted? BTW - I am an administrator here and can delete this page whenever you'd like (although I'd prefer not). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

rick -- i'm really tired of going back and forth over this... i am not going to add the photos back, i asked you to b/c you were the person that removed them. i don't see how the photos are substantially identical (i suggest you look again, if you really think they are). As far as them, in your opinion, not being that helpful -- i disagree and i think it very presumptuous of you that based on your opinion, you deleted photos that were already there (before i touched anything). Again if the were 7 or 10 photos i would probably agree with you but that was not the case in any of these instances. When you say that anyone is free to add them back... how are people who are coming to visit the webpage even going to know there are other photos that exist about that station in order to put them back. The photos you removed were all there previous to my edits, with the exception of the one that i added at lousiana - pearl.

"The intent is to create an encyclopedia, not a travel site (and certainly not a host for personal photos)" -- you know encyclopedias contain photos. They do so b/c they add information. The webpages for these stations are pathetically thin. I resent the implication that i am trying to use wikipedia for a travel site or hosting personal photos. i have created other webpages for that & , and they themselves are heavily edited down from the photos i took. And yes I want this page deleted, as a matter of fact i want my user account deleted, but i read thru the help and it seems that is not possible, but if you can arrange that i would appreciate it.

I wasn't implying you were trying to treat Misplaced Pages as a travel site or for hosting personal photos, just setting the context. We really haven't gone back and forth about this essentially at all, I've simply been trying to engage you in a conversation in an apparently futile attempt to keep you as an editor. I've deleted your talk page per your request. I will look at the images again, and I wouldn't mind discussing them with you if you decide to pay attention to this page (or any of the talk pages for the articles in question). -- Rick Block (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Hensel

Hello Rick:

Why should this site be deleted? The music of this composer is of an outstanding quality.Though he is one of the persons that work still in the background, he becomes more and more important in the young german composers generation and receives more and more perception. His music has gotten a european dimension at his last event. Not many students are growing that fast in the music world. You just have to look on the list of his teachers, that have been the most important german and austrian composers of their time.

You surely may delete it. But if you do that, there will be coming an other person in some weeks or months to create this site new. You would have to answer the question why a site of the composer Moritz Eggert is not deleted but the site of Daniel Hensel. Surely Eggert got more international reputation, but he is more than 14 years older.

I believe in Hensels music. I saw and heard him in Berlin and he was quite impressive to me. And he won international prizes as well.

Duran Duran featured article

Thanks for the kind words about Duran Duran. I was very disheartened by the article's turn at WP:FAR -- while I appreciate the dedication and sincerity of the people who work there, it was hard to see the star removed over relatively small matters; the bulk of the actual text of the article remains untouched (although I am waiting my turn for a little attention from the League of Copyeditors to see if they can make any improvements -- strike that, apparently being defeatured means I don't get to ask for copyediting either....).

However, with my new job I have very little time for serious Misplaced Pages editing these days -- I cast an eye over my watchlist for vandalism each morning, and occasionally take a turn at a simple task like disambiguating, but I hope that some day soon I will able to just spend a day or two poring over my source materials and cite every last crazy thing they asked for. I know I can finish bringing the level of citations up to standard, and when I have I will definitely re-submit the article to WP:FAC. I thank you again for the encouragement to do so. — Catherine\ 04:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of Faceboy

Hi, sorry it took so long to get back to you. Since the speedy was contested, I've nominated the faceboy article for deletion (Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Faceboy).ˉˉ╦╩ 14:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Workshop diffs

The diffs you are using on the workshop are wrong. The diff for "End of March to end of April" should be be from the last saved version in March to the last saved version in April. You have an off-by-one error - e.g, you're using the last saved version in March to the first saved version in May. Now this is normally not a problem, unless the first edit of the month happens to be someone promoting or demoting FAs, which in this case, it is. Raul654 17:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind though. It was all my fault to begin with - I archived them to the wrong month. I've fixed it all now. So everything back to (and including) July 2005 is correct. Raul654 17:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant to be taking end of month to end of month, but didn't adjust to UTC (times on history pages are displayed in my timezone preference, not UTC). Even if I'd thought about this, I might have used that diff anyway (since you're in US Eastern time, and that diff was made in April in your timezone). -- Rick Block (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by DYK article creation/nominations

I saw that Rick Bot maintains Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations and thought that you could help out DYK. DYK is in the process of trying to create a List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs. We've been trying to do it manually and encourage editors to add their own numbers, but the list is far from complete. However, each DYK's Article creator's talk page receives {{UpdatedDYK}} on it and each DYK article Nominator's talk page receives {{UpdatedDYKNom}} on it. Is it possible for Rick Bot to be revised to search through all user talk pages for {{UpdatedDYK}} and {{UpdatedDYKNom}} and to use those postings to create a table similar to the one at List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs.? Also, a list of DYK creators can be obtained from the first post of each article listed at Misplaced Pages:Recent_additions. For example, the users who made the first post for each article listed between ''' ''' marks at Misplaced Pages:Recent_additions is considered the DYK article creator. Such a list would be great. Thanks. -- Jreferee 22:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I could probably write a script of some sort that would find all references to UpdatedDYK and/or UpdatedDYKNom and create a table. I'm not sure how to figure out the counts. I'll think about this and let you know. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The important one is article creation. Could the bot compile a one time list of the users who made the first post at each article listed at Misplaced Pages:Recent_additions. I could just take the list, put it into Microsoft Excel, and manually count how many times a user is listed. We are more or less looking for the big DYK contributors to give people an idea of who is doing what and what is considered alot of contributions. Thanks. -- Jreferee 07:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Reading through this again, it actually wouldn't be too difficult to write a tool that would read all the archives for Misplaced Pages:Recent_additions producing a list of DYK articles, and then another tool to find the first contributor to a given article, and then a third tool to run the list through the "find first contributor" tool. Reading the notes at the archive, this would (erroneously) identify a stub creator as the contributor (rather than whoever "greatly expanded former stub"). Perhaps the right way to do this would be archive by archive, and produce a file (for each archive) of the article name and the creator/contributor - conceptually similar to the files like Misplaced Pages:Featured articles nominated in 2007. Given a regularly formatted set of files like this (perhaps a subpage under the archive page), it wouldn't be hard to write some code to generate a list like WP:WBFAN from these files (which I gather is basically what you're after). I can probably get around to this sometime this weekend. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sweet! The DYK articles in 2007 heading might be 1. Article 2. Main page date 3. Article by 4.Nominator. The WP:WBDYK(?) results could be posted someplace at Misplaced Pages:Did you know/Hall of Fame. -- Jreferee 20:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I now have a tool that can generate pages like this (note the article names are as presented on the DYK page - it would be trivial to put the actual article name in the table instead if that'd be preferable). Where are the main page dates and nominators recorded? -- Rick Block (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)