Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:01, 24 September 2007

Put BotSpam in it's place.... /dev/null

TDVision Accusations

Hello, just wanted to alert you that your name was brought up as a self confessed "inclusionist" whose philosophy is against that of the spirit of wikipedia. Not sure exactly what that means I'll have to look it up. 3dtech 05:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for that. I have placed a responce to the comment Fosnez 07:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Saving TDVision AFD

Greetings, it is good to see the citations going into your article. I think this should definatly been enough to "save" it... Fosnez 13:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I noticed there still was a comment for a weak delete even after the changes. I'm going to be working today to cite more sources. This is my first foray into wikipedia so I don't know exactly how it all works. It's still hard to tell from the discussion page what the consensus is. 3dtech 13:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats ok, Misplaced Pages can be a scary place to start off with. Do not be two concerned about the weak delete. I don't think it will be deleted now, but you can never been too careful. The good thing about AfDs is if it gets kept this time then thats it, its always in the Wiki (Think of it like Double Jeopardy) - Fosnez 13:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Skyrail Rainforest Cableway map

Excellent, your response time was very quick! Could you do one for the Kuranda Scenic Railway? - Shiftchange 01:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I will do it, but not right now.. It is a much bigger map to do... Fosnez

The map for Kuranda Scenic Railway has been created, uploaded and released. Please let me know what you think. Fosnez 08:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

In case you wanted some detailed feedback I would definately suggest using a large font for names, using black or a darker grey for roads and railways. Optionally I suggest you move scale and compass headings to corner or side, make maps more square shaped, add a border and if there are more features add a legend. In this case I would extend the river to edge of map and I think showing the waterfalls was a nice touch. - Shiftchange 02:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for your feedback. I have edited the map and after fighting with wikipedia's .SVG scaler, I have uploaded a new version. I link the rectangular map is better in this case because in thumbnail view it is more visible on the article's page, and it also"fits" the content better. Feel free to critique the new one. Fosnez 03:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Howdy

Just checking in. I found a message that was apparently accidentally truncated before it was archived. I took the liberty to go back and fix it for you. If you decide you need any help with archiving or whatever, don't hesitate to contact me (or most other admins). Best, --Kukini 17:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

OH...and I noticed all the GREAT work you are doing here. Keep it up! We are very glad to have you amongst us! --Kukini 17:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

DJ's for Cairns

Hi Fosnez!!Thanks for you interest in what I added. In actual fact, I was involved in a conversation with someone from Cairns Central who hinted the possiblity..It isn't hard evidence I know :(, but it's the best I can give as a source.

SVG version of Image:Building and ship comparison.png

Could you please upload an SVG version of Image:Building and ship comparison.png? Newer Corel Draw versions export to SVG. Andrew_pmk | Talk 07:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, I actually uploaded it before the .png version but wikipedia refuses to render it. The wikipedia page is here direct link (that works) is here Fosnez 12:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that there is a bug in CorelDraw. Both Misplaced Pages and Firefox refused to render your SVG. Nevertheless, I was able to open and resave it in Inkscape, which made Misplaced Pages render it. Unfortunately, it appears that Misplaced Pages has a bug that caused the SVG to render incorrectly (the resaved SVG worked perfectly in Firefox) so I had to made some modifications to the image so that it renders correctly in Misplaced Pages.

Since you seem to have added an additional example of a large ship to the PNG file, but not the SVG file (the Queen Mary II), I have not replaced references to the PNG file with references to the SVG file. Andrew_pmk | Talk 18:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It turns out that the bug that is causing this problem has been fixed in a newer version of MediaWiki's SVG rendering software, and that a simple version upgrade needs to be done by the Wikimedia developers. I have filed a bug at . Once this bug is fixed, uploads of CorelDraw-created SVG files should work in Misplaced Pages. Andrew_pmk | Talk 19:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, I have uploaded the latest version, with the extra ship in it. Unfortunatly it is still not displaying 100% correctly... but it is better than it was. Have a play with it if you want. - Fosnez 01:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It's now fixed. Andrew_pmk | Talk 04:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks mate, did you want to put it on some pages? I did but someone removed it, admittedly it was a while ago, but I don't feel right in adding them again. - Fosnez 10:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

cairns map

No worries, glad to help :) --Astrokey44 10:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

August 2007

Oops... sorry. There's only so much you can see from the diffs, and I evidentially have no clue what dube means. I make mistakes when I do this, sometimes, tell me directly so I know. Thanks! Gscshoyru 12:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats ok, I ment to type "Dup" but my fingers are moving faster than my brain at the moment. No hard feelings here :-) Fosnez 12:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Album covers

Please stop uploading higher resolution album covers. Copyrighted images on Misplaced Pages should be low resolution. For more information, please see WP:NFCC. 17Drew 02:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, All images I have uploaded have been "To give a visual description to the topic being discussed and further enhance the article as a whole". I am yet to see a good argument on what defines "Low resolution", in my opnion, 500x500 is a low resolution - you certainly can't print it out and use it, and is quite common on album art images on wikipedia. Album art is used to "enhance the article" - whats the point in having it there at all if we are going to use shit quality pictures that you can't see any detail in, like the one that is currently used Here. - Fosnez 03:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

See Category:Rescaled fairuse images more than 7 days old. Copyrighted images shouldn't be more than around .1 megapixels (500x500 is more than twice that). We justify using copyrighted album covers on Misplaced Pages because they are being used in the article space at low resolutions and displayed at 200-300 pixels wide. Uploading at higher resolutions goes against the policy of not using copyrighted material unless not including it would be detrimental to the reader's understanding. 17Drew 05:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Chop Chop (Australian English)

Hi and thanks for starting the above article. I have left some thoughts about the article name on the article talk page and would be interested to know your thoughts. Cheers, Mattinbgn\ 01:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the page as requested to Chop Chop (Tobacco) - Fosnez 02:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Image

Greetings, I have recently visited an old article that I had added an image to, only to find that you had removed it because it was apparently "ridiculous" and then procedded to remove it from the other articles it had been added too. Would you care to explain why it was "ridiculous"? This image clearly shows the sizes of some of the largest buildings/ships on the planet. (And before you comment on the fact a starship is included, it was put on there to compare it to the Aircraft Carrier USS Enterprise.) - Fosnez 14:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Planet killer

Hi, I am trying to rewrite Planet killer in light of the AfD. I've started a user subpage at User:Wl219/List of fictional weapons of mass destruction and would appreciate your comments. Thanks. Wl219 20:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion or for a page that you have edited heavily

As someone that occasionally does NA closures as well, I would advise you that per Non-administrators closing discussions "closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion or for a page that you have edited heavily presents a conflict of interest and should be avoided." if something actually qualifies per WP:SNOW, someone else will certainly come along and close it accordingly. Moreover, for Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bolster Day you still need to add an {{oldafdfull}} tag to the talk page. --Tikiwont 13:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, It's my fist invocation of the snow clause, and my first non-admin closure... I was being bold, perhaps a bit too bold, but so be it. Regarding the "edited heavily", I did see that, but inferred that this meant editing prior to the article Afd, to stop the original creator of the article from using it. Fosnez 13:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not about being bold, but avoiding conflicts of interest by anyone, non only the original creator. This closing rule applies actually also to administrators, just that in case of a Non-admin it can be overturned by any administrator. Since you have referenced the article above and now also Gumtree (which is of course a good thing) and argued for closure on the basis of those refs, you shouldn't close it yourself, no matter how clear it seems to you and also not in the case of a withdrawn nom. Doing so repeatedly, might eventually bee seen rather disruptive than helpful. In any case happy editing!--Tikiwont 13:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification, I think I understand now Fosnez 13:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Helicopter Shark

You indicated at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Helicopter Shark that you supported the article, but did not enter an explicit !vote on the AfD page, either delete or keep. As your comments appear to be only a comment, and not a !vote, they may be discounted or ignored by a closing administrator. Let me know if I can help with anything regarding this article. Alansohn 05:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, Thankyou for your message, but my Keep statement is the 8th from the top. I then commented later down the page Fosnez 05:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, and thanks for your input. My brain seems to have shut down for the night, even though my fingers still keep typing. Alansohn 05:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats ok, we all have those days/weeks/etc :-) - Fosnez 06:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

TDVision

No problemo, I'm sure you didn't mean anything by it :) Gatoclass 13:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Closure of Stanley Dunin AfD

Since you have closed this discussion, could you please add some reliable sources that discuss Stanley Dunin to the article. If you are confident that the subject is notable, perhaps you will take some responsibility for improving the article? Tim Vickers 02:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, thankyou for checking up on the AfD closure, its always good to ask :-) I closed the AfD for a couple of reasons. The nomination said that the person the article speaks about was not notable. Google searches should be avoided in notability discussions, especially when this person's notable events took place before Google was around, or the internet was even invented. According to the definition in WP:N notabillity is "Significant coverage by multiple Reliable Secondary Sources Independent of the subject." Notabliity has been established by citation of The New York Times, Detroit Times and Letter from Senator Homer Ferguson of Michigan to Secretary of State. While I agree the article needs a massive cleanup and many more citations, deletion is not the answer. Perhaps you could place some {{fact}} tags where you believe citations are needed? Fosnez 02:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise you were an admin, the statement about adding tags was not ment to be patronizing. Fosnez 02:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the notability of Mr. Dunin, but I think that a non-admin "snowball keep" closure, after less than three hours, of an AfD that includes multiple delete opinions is definitely out of line. I'll probably be taking this one to DRV when I get the chance, unless someone beats me to it. Deor 03:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Unclosed, non-administrators shouldn't be speedy-closing AfD's after less than six hours, especially when four people have expressed opinions to delete. I do this per the clause "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrato", at WP:DPR#NAC. Daniel 03:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that you have the right to re-open it, and by all means do. The nomination for deletion was for non-notability. I snowball closed the AfD because notabillity has clearly been established by sources and therefore the four opinions for deletion are clearly irrelevant. Fosnez 03:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not your decision to make, although I agree with your assessment. AfD's are to determine consensus, ie. everyone's opinion. Daniel 03:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I would respectfully assert that it is my decision, WP:SNOW was invoked by another editor, upon reading the AfD and Article I agreed with the SNOW request and closed it, but as I have said before, I welcome the reopening of the AfD. Fosnez 03:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:SK#Applicability, point one. This closure was clearly out-of-line, and I suggest you rethink your snow closures in the future. Closing a debate which was nominated in good faith by an established editor and was being extensively discussed after a mere ten hours, ie. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/History of conversion of Jews to Islam, is also inappropriate for a non-administrator. Please be more careful and conservative with closing AfD's on the future, and refrain from closing them prior to five days. Daniel 03:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)`

Hi Fosnez. Do bear in mind that WP:SK outlines some very restrictive sets of circumstances where discussions should be closed early. For one thing, its usually not a good idea to close discussions where anyone is still advocating the deletion of the article. Also bear in mind that WP:SNOW implies that there is no chance the article will be deleted - that's very hard to be sure of after a short discussion. It might have that the first few contributors will want to keep an article but that all subsequent contributors will think it should be deleted. That's why we generally keep discussions open for 5 or 7 days. Discussions really should only be closed early where there is no chance of the outcome changing, not just where you feel the nominator's arguments have been refuted. WjBscribe 03:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I would comment that WP:SNOW != WP:SK. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/History of conversion of Jews to Islam had a snowball's chance in hell of resulting in deletion - hence its closure. I diagree that my closure of Stanley Dunin was out of line, but it may have been too bold. As SNOW says, the snowball test can be applied to an action only after it's performed, and is thus useful for learning from experience - as this has been. Fosnez 03:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/History of conversion of Jews to Islam after only 10 hours of discussion and with only 5 people had responded to it. In my experience such discussion attrack upwards of 20 commentators - its hard to work out what the other 15 would have said from the first 5. SNOW is not about the merits of the nomination, its about the progress of the debate. The name is a metaphor - as the snowball rolls down the hill it gathers speed. Reflected in a discussions that means a accelarating pile-on of comments in one direction, which I can't see there. Frankly, I can't imagine any case where a snowball close should happen if only 6 people have participated in the discussion. WjBscribe 03:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The direction of a debate is set by its nomination. If the nomination was invalid, as this one's was (as indicated by the number of Strong Keep and comments) then there is no point in continueing the AfD process. If you feel that this article has valid reason for deletion, please relist it with a valid nomination. Fosnez 03:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not for you to assess early the validity of the nomination - that is for those who participate in the discussion to do over the course of those discussions. Consensus is then assessed at the end. Early closes should only happen where the result is a foregone conclusion - which is not something you are in a position to assess after only 10 hours and 5 comments. No one (admin or not) should close discussions that early. Please let discussions run longer in future - its does no harm and reflects the fact that decisions should be made by consensus not on the whims of one person. I could revert your close and relist the debate but as you say this isn't a bureaucracy and I have no strong opinions either way about that article. Please work within the appropriate policies (WP:SK and WP:SNOW) and if in doubt just express an opinion - if the result is as obvious as you think, someone else is bound to close the discussion the same way. WjBscribe 04:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for your advise. Fosnez 04:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

An illustrative example is Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Neo-Darwinism, which certainly looked alike a SNOW candidate after the first day, with only the person who created the article arguing to keep it. However, with re-writing on the second day, most editors looking at the new version of the article are saying it should be kept. Please remember that not everybody has a much free time as we do, and some editors do not check their watchlists every day. You may have acted over-hastily here. Tim Vickers 04:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Seaswift

Very nice! The only reason I deleted the original was because it was an ad, which of course yours is not. Good work on the new version. Seraphimblade 15:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No.

I don't know who you think you are, but it is highly unconstructive to drop a templated user warning on a longstanding admin's page for a good faith (and correct) edit. ⇒ SWATJester 05:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)