Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:52, 28 September 2007

Complaint threads are marked with an ! before the section title. Threads are usually archived after 3 months of no discussion: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007.

Ubuntu trademark on userbox.

Re .

My logo differs from Canonical's Ubuntu logo in many ways:

• Mine has four main colors; Canonical's has three colors total.
• Mine has four "children"; Canonical's has only three children.
• My children's heads overlap their "arms" on both sides. In Canonical's logo, not only do they not intersect but they do not even touch; nowhere in Canonical's logo do different colors touch, except due to anti-aliasing.
• My children are separated by 90 degrees (a consequence of having an additional child) while Canonical's are separated by 120 degrees.
• Three of the four main colors used in my logo are not used in Canonical's.
• My logo has additional colors, mainly on the outside edge of the large "circle" (see next reason) where the children's arms meet their "heads." Canonical's does not.
• My children align with the directions on a compass; Canonical's do not.
• My children's arms are created by dividing a large sixteen-sided polygon; Canonical's are made by dividing a large circle.
• My children's heads are much larger than Canonical's and their arms are much smaller and proportionately wider.
• My image transitions much less smoothly to transparent than Canonical's.

Please respond if you still disagree.

SteveSims 22:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Answer. -- Jeandré, 2007-07-09t09:47z

Previewing categories.

Re

Hello Jeandré. I just wanted to say a big thank you for the note on my page about being able to preview categories at the bottom of the page. I don't believe that I have ever scrolled down that far when editing and, while it isn't the most important thing in the world, I do try to have my edits in order before saving so I use the show preview button a lot. I appreciate the time that you took to let me know about this and thanks again! :) MarnetteD | Talk 20:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Eyes Wide Shut proposal.

Re .

Hi again. I think that your proposal is quite reasonable and well thought out and I thank you for the time that you took in coming up with it. If all of those items can be met then there is little problem with the additions though I am not sure how encyclopedic the entire idea becomes when it is only one critics view of the film that are being expressed, but I am happy to leave it at that. I am a bit worried about this editor in general because a perusal of their edit history shows a great deal of personal opinion about the subjects where they are editing. All of this is great stuff at a blog but a little dicey here. I made some of the same kind of mistakes when I first started editing here (though I wasn't into name calling the way this editor is) so I will keep my fingers crossed that they learn from this situation and become a valuable contibuter. Thanks again for your time and take care. MarnetteD | Talk 20:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a few things that have come to mind in the last day or so, and be aware that I don't want any of them to change the work that you are doing with Zosar, I just throw them out as food for thought. I think that it should be noted that citing just one film critic/historian is a dodgy thing in an encyclopedia that is trying to maintain NPOV. In the case of criticism there is no better example than Kubrick. Most of his films received harsh reviews, by some, at the time of their release while later assessments found them to be cinematic masterpieces (this is a general statement and does not apply to all reviewers). When it comes to film historians reading various items into the film (ie philosophy, style, deeper meanings, reflections on the human condition etc etc) it is always important to keep in mind that this is just one persons view. Others will have entirely different interpretations. In my case their were certain things that I read into Kubrick films when I was in my twenties that, when I look back on them today, I realize had as much to say about me at that age as they had to say about Stanley's films. I think that the dilemma with only having Ciment's and, thus, Zosar's interpretations of the film on wikipedia's page is that it might (not will as I am not at all prescient in anything) tend to make a reader feel that this is the only way to interpret what they will see/have seen when they watch this film. This is one of the main reasons that I feel that Zosar would be much happier writing at a Kubrick blog or forum page. I hope that your work in trying to get this editor to make their edits more encyclopedic is appreciated as I can think of certain editors/admins here at wikiP who would continue to take all of it out. I also thank you from stopping me from being that kind of editor. Keep up the good work and cheers. :~) MarnetteD | Talk 20:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Just thought that I would let you know, in case you hadn't already noticed, that Zosar put his edit back on the article for the film. He then took it back out and moved it to the talk page but still did not attempt to meet any of the verification criteria that you proposed. I know that talk pages are handled differently then the main article page when this kind of thing occurs so I will let you decide how to handle it. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 12:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are interested today the entire section has been put back in the main page for the article and, again, none of the criteria that you proposed has been followed through on . MarnetteD | Talk 12:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki of Glossary of trauma terms.

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Glossary of trauma terms, by Iknowyourider (talk · contribs), another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Glossary of trauma terms is an article that has been discussed at Articles for Deletion (or Miscellany for deletion), where the outcome was to transwiki, and where the transwikification has been properly performed and the author information recorded (CSD A5).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Glossary of trauma terms, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 21:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Eyes and now The Best of Youth.

Hello again Jeandré. It looks as though Zosar has little or no intention of supplying the requested info. Should we at least slap a "original research" tag on the section the he has added if we aren't going to remove it? Another film that is on my watchlist is The Best of Youth. Today a whole raft of edits that are full of original research and POV have been added by User:Greg Scian. My inclination is to remove the Analysis section and tone down the POV but rather than start an edit war I thought that I would ask that if you have the time and the inclination to take a look at them and see if you can apply some of the same reasoning with this editor that you did with Zosar would you please do so. If you are too busy I will understand but if you can give some time to this it will be much appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 19:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply. -- Jeandré, 2007-08-10t09:05z

Thanks for looking into both of these things. I will be interested to see if Zosar returns. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 20:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Basepagename messing up code?

Re .

Hi Jeandré du Toit. I changed the code in the Ubuntu template because when I first accessed the page, the text in the Userbox said "Template:User OS Ubuntu no logo uses ubuntu" - Now that struck me as being a little bit wierd, in that the {{Basepagename}} attribute was causing it to display its own pagename as a user of Ubuntu as it included the template! All I did was took out the {{Basepagename}} attribute and left it as "This user" which makes sense, and matches what most of the other Userboxes and templates look like. I suppose it was just an attempt to standardise it a bit and stop it from looking strange. Regards, Thor Malmjursson 13:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply. -- Jeandré, 2007-08-10t09:05z

Apollo Theatre website.

Re

Hi there. I see you have changed the 'website' for the Apollo Theatre back to www.apollo-theatre.co.uk and I thought I should talk to you before changing it again. I do not think that it is right that apollo-theatre.co.uk should be in the info box as it is a url owned by a secondary ticket agent and whilst it does contain an amount of information for the theatre it is not 'official' and it's primary purpose is to sell tickets (& why promote that agent above above any of the others??). It does seem that the only reason it is in there is because it has a url which is like the theatres name. I do think that an info box should if possible point to an 'official' page - i.e. one owned and maintained by the venue itself and therefore my suggestion would be that it should point to http://www.nimaxtheatres.com/apollotheatre.asp which has as much, if not more, information as the ticket agent site and is also the theatre's 'official' web page. What do you think? I do agree by the way that pointing at the main Nimax home page was not ideal. Kind regards, • nancy • 17:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining and sorry for my sloppiness: I didn't read the fine print at the bottom of apollo-theatre.co.uk. I've put the www.nimaxtheatres.com/apollotheatre.asp link in the box. -- Jeandré, 2007-08-22t09:51z

No problem, it's an easy mistake to make as they do make it their business to look like they are the proper theatre homepage & not just with the Apollo. Thanks for getting back so quickly, kind regards, • nancy • 10:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

!SineBot incapable of recognizing ISO 8601.

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 21:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 11:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 15:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

!Vandalia, Ohio.

Re

Just wanted to let you know: when US place articles were created, they were sourced to the records of the United States Census, 2000, the last census to be taken. These results, as can be seen on this page, give the legal status of the city. That's what the Template:GR tag is for: a way to tell the user how to find the information. Because the introductions to articles such as Vandalia are based directly upon official governmental records, the only way that a properly worded intro can be wrong is if the governmental source is wrong. This is the way that it is for the thousands of incorporated places throughout the United States. If nothing else, there's no more reason to tag it than there is to tag the intro to Cape Town, which has no reference for its first-paragraph statement that it is a city. Nyttend 18:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Re

How do you define suburb? Here in the United States, it's a smaller community outside of a large one, whether incorporated or not, as if it's a moon around a planet. By Ohio law, it's a city. It doesn't matter what South Africans call it, any more than it matters what I call a corresponding place in South Africa. Please understand that there's a difference here, and please don't disrupt articles on places in the USA. Nyttend 19:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Article talk page ref request. -- Jeandré, 2007-09-13t19:44z

Hard SF list of authors.

Re (), moved from archive page. -- Jeandré, 2007-09-15t18:17z

I reverted you template addition regarding the authors list. The problem is not how represantative the list is, but that it is a list of authors, or a list at all.

I have already gone over it with some care, and it could be better sourced if necessary, since I was adding and subtracting from the standard books on the subject. There is a deeper problem with definitions of genre here, which won't be settled by adding to or subtracting from , or even sourcing, a list.

But in any case, those discussing the matter are aware of the problem you were trying to raise. But your solution (or the one mentioned on the template) is unlikely to work. --Pleasantville 19:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning out Category:Women in comics.

Re

I was just wondering about the reason for this edit? Thanks, Hersfold 01:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Answer. -- Jeandré, 2007-09-17t11:20z

Re: Date in subject.

will do. I removed it because most mail-readers can tell you the date, but I suppose it is a little more trouble to find it that way.

-Frazzydee|✍ 21:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)