Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:11, 21 October 2007

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 13 October, 2007, a fact from the article Indo-Burma barrier, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--WjBscribe 08:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

==Hey Stay off my talk page. IvoShandor 17:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Jim Corbett National Park

Hi,
Following a taxing rewrite of trade routes I have been busy writing relaxing articles under WikiProject Protected Areas. I have rewritten the Jim Corbett National Park article and am planning to nominate it for GA after some checking and re-checking (for which I'm currently too tired/blind). It would be of help to me if you could read the article and tell me what more needs to be done to push it to to GA. Personally, I think this fascinating article has solid FA potential.
With Regards,
Havelok 02:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I figured that you were busy and would reply when you had time. Since the GA review for Trade Routes is still pending and I may have to wait before Jim Corbett National Park gets reviewed I'll just bring Spice trade up to par in the meantime. That way I can get some work done and hopefully promote Spice trade to GA as well.
I'll keep you posted and will keep seeking suggestions from you,
With Regards,
Havelok 20:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, one Major Ramsay actually. He was the one who evicted the tribals. Havelok 21:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the copyedit; In its new avatar the article will certainly do a better job in engaging a reader.Havelok 22:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes sir. My fault sir,  :-) Havelok 22:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination for Jesse Bankston was successful

Did you know? was updated. On October 15, 2007, a fact from the article Jesse Bankston, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 06:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Medicine deletion sorting page

Hi Mattisse! The page is at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Medicine, but it looks like psychiatric abuse is already listed there. To list an article you just follow the instructions at the top of the page. In case you need them, the other deletion sort pages are listed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting. Cheers, Espresso Addict 17:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I will bookmark that page. Don't know why I was so lost. Thanks! --Mattisse 17:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Rennie v. Klein

On 15 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rennie v. Klein, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ⁄_(c) • 18:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha

If you want my honest opinion, I think it is Caisson that needs to be merged into an article on zaojing (preferably as a separate explanatory section), not the other way around. I say this in consideration that it only focuses on the Forbidden City, while the zaojing covers a much wider time frame. That's just me, though.--Pericles of Athens 06:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 16 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article United States v. Binion, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 12:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiggins v. Smith

On 16 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wiggins v. Smith, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Elkman 16:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Sorry

I accept your apology, and I will move on from here. I simply think that your comments were the straw that broke the camels back. I will talk with Ivo when I get back. I never discourage people from trying to make the Misplaced Pages a better place, but I do believe that unless you do not talk with a person on a regular basis, don't joke around with them in a matter they will take personally. That is the only advice I can give you, take it or leave as you see fit. I don't think you should stop with DYK, but just make constructive comments rather than destructive comments. Thanks for taking the time to contact me and good luck with your writings on the Misplaced Pages. I hope that you now understand that the reason he did a fourfer/fiver this was to allow for other DYK submitters to have the chance to have their articles posted, rather than having five seperate articles about basically the same subject post. To me, that is being thoughtful. Again, good luck and enjoy the Misplaced Pages for what it is.--Kranar drogin 21:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

I'd like to reach a compromise with the minimum fuss and inconvenience for everyone. I still haven't put up the merge templates because right now I don't have the time to initiate and moderate a big debate.

So I wonder if I could get your opinion on this question:

• Do you agree that Caisson (in the Asian architectural context) and Zaojing are exactly the same thing?
  • If yes, then the logical conclusion is to merge, and then it is just a question of which name to use;
  • If no, I guess we will have to do a formal merger debate.

Thanks, PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

On dictionaries and whatnot

Dear Mattisse, I don't get why you don't trust the OED. It is way way more authoritative than your Random House dictionary. The Oxford English Dictionary is written by the top linguists in the Anglophone world, and is treated as the authority on the English language the world over. Seriously. Go and find it in your library. It's a dozen volumes. You won't miss it.

Architectural references that use "caisson" - if you do a simple JSTOR search on "caisson" + "china", you will find dozens of academic articles on classical Chinese architecture that use the term "caisson" as the English translation of "zaojing". I'm not asking you to trust me. Just do a JSTOR search.

Some of those sources I have cited in the article, others I have cited in my communications to you. Are you deliberately ignoring the sources, or do you just not have access to an academic library? Please let me know, because I am a bit baffled by your repeated responses denying the validity of articles on JSTOR and the OED. I won't even go into the online sources -- which you yourself used in zaojing -- that use "caisson" as the translation as the Chinese word "zaojing".

If this is a cultural issue, I apologise. Please let me know if we have a different conception of the status of academic artiles, JSTOR, and the OED due to a cultural issue. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Further on dictionaries and whatnot

You keep talking about "lay man's terms". Have you seen the sources quoted by the OED for its definition? Did you even know that the OED quotes sources for its definitions? You might need to read Oxford English Dictionary before you make more comments on this field.

You keep on talking about lay man's terms. Did you even bother to do the JSTOR search I asked you to do? If you did, you might have noticed, for example, Nancy Shatzman Steinhardt, The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 47, No. 1. (Mar., 1988), pp. 57-73., which I had posted on your talk page many days ago -- an academic journal article that uses the "Caisson" as a translation of "zaojing". Please consult these sources and tell me why you think they are wrong.

I have quoted tonnes of sources - and you have too -- that show that "Caisson" is the English word for "zaojing". You have not quoted a single source that says it is not. If you have a bunch of reliable sources on the one hand supporting a proposition, and no reliable sources on the other hand denying it, then the proposition must stand, as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned. Cheers, PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Checked the link you gave above and it does not mention anything relevant to this discussion that I can see. Cheers. --Mattisse 15:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that you have to resort to correct Misplaced Pages procedure

"I will try to hammer out a consensus with Mattisse because I just don't have the time to run a full merger debate. However, if all else fails, I guess we would have to resort to that."

It is this attitude of yours as expressed in the above comment to PericlesofAthens that makes it difficult to interact with you.

Also, the comment to PericlesofAthens "PS, with regard to Mattisse's comments above: he is still talking about "his" sources and materials. I just don't get it."

Please advice the correct way to refer generally to the sources I have consulted without offending you.

My apologizes to you. Cheers. --Mattisse 14:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you know

On 17 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article mitigating factor, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3  15:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Psychiatry article

Thanks for the nice comments, they were probably needed :). I'm actually going to be moving it to the main page very soon - as soon as I'm done with the lead section.

Yea, I was involved in some discussion of the psychiatric abuse article. I kind of liked the idea of having a single place documenting all incidents were "psychiatry" was used as "abuse" from a historical context. But the article turned into a POV soap box. I included a link to it in the main psychiatry article, then the article got deleted. So someone removed the link. Then a spinoff article was created and I introduced a link for that. Then that article got deleted. Now the psychiatric abuse article is there again, but has another AFD. haha, well, I'm going to let everyone cool down and figure out what to do with it before I reintroduce a link. At least that article provides a very entertaining discussion ;). Chupper 23:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

A simple question

Look, I'm not going to bother giving you links and sources, since the last time I posted one, you didn't even bother to read it thoroughly ("Checked the link you gave above and it does not mention anything relevant to this discussion that I can see.") What's more, you are so fixated on attacking the OED (incomprehensibly), that you repeatedly fail to see what I have said: the OED is the source for precisely one sentence in the article, a sentence about the usage of an English word. Even if you somehow succeed in impugning the OED and the sources it cites, that is just one sentence in the article, and it says nothing about the issue of merger. Nor do I think you have succeeded in impugning the OED and its sources - for example, Gwilt's Encyclopaedia of Architecture. The last time I checked, Gwilt is a much much more authoritative source than you. That's right, you, because you still haven't cited any sources to say a caisson is different from a zaojing - all we have is your own WP:OR.

Let me ask you one question, just answer it with a "yes" or a "no", so that I know exactly how far we disagree, and so which way we need to look to progress:

That question is: "Do you, or do you not, agree that caisson used in the Asian architectural context means exactly the same thing as the Chinese word zaojing?"

Please answer that question. This discussion cannot progress until it is clearly answered. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think they both should be merged into coffer, as that is what Caisson (Asian architecture) clearly describes. On the Wiki Commons, the word "caisson" and "coffer" is used interchangeably for the ceiling type described in Caisson (Asian architecture). Used in this sense, zaojing is just another word for coffer. --Mattisse 13:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

On Wiki Commons, the Forbidden City ceiling is in the category "Round ceiling".

--Mattisse 13:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Jim Corbett National Park

Your ongoing contributions to the article are really helping a lot. I have picked up valuable pointers from your work, especially your copyediting, and I know it'll help me make my own edits better.
Havelok 16:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If luck favors then I may get more images for the article. One of my friends says that he may be of help but it's taking way too much time. I've even asked on good old Flickr ! Havelok 16:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Its Ok

I understand. I will let you know as soon as I need another serious kind of help. But if you read it in the user: mattisse/2 page and have some suggession on my writing style, that would be nice. I just might be seeking more help in the near future. Shoovrow 17:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Way to find

Just type User: Mattisse/2 in the search box in the left of wiki.Shoovrow 18:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK: Bigby v. Dretke

On 19 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bigby v. Dretke, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai 09:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Kansas v. Hendricks

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Kansas v. Hendricks, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://web.utk.edu/~scheb/Hendricks.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 18:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You can have the article. Go ahead and delete it. I have lost interest. --Mattisse 23:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Rorschach pic in Clinical Psychology article

(Undeleted Rorschach sample pic)

Actually, in graduate school and post graduate school, psychologists are taught that it is ethically wrong to publish psychological tests. It is not a question of copyright. It invalidates the test. That is the problem. But, of course, I do not expect[REDACTED] to respect this sort of thing. But it is unethical for a psychologist to publish a Rorschack card. And that is an actual card, one out of ten. So 10% of the test is invalid for all who see that card. Is it worth it, do you think? I know[REDACTED] is not concerned with ethics, but.....? --Mattisse 01:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it matters very much, but all ten Rorschach cards are already available on-line on a Spanish website linked to the Misplaced Pages Rorschach article. I have seen them on the web before, many times. Clinical secrets like these have brief lives. NRPanikker 01:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't expect you to understand. It has to do with the ethically standards of a professional, licensed psychologist. Perhaps you belong to a profession that has ethical standards, that although violating them is not against the law, you as a professional could not ethically condone. It is an ethical question for psychologists so it will make any psychologist queasy to see that done. I know what you are saying is true. It is easily available in unauthorized places, so is pornography and I guess[REDACTED] has no standards about that either. People differ. --Mattisse 01:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot

Hi, please please please do not be so sensitive to the actions of this bot. All it is saying is that text in your article matches text somewhere else on the Internet. If you are citing text from public domain sources, this is going to happen. But the bot is only raising the issue. It is not deciding it, and it is not passing judgment. Your article will not be deleted unless a human editor decides you have violated some copyright. You are free to delete the CorenSearchBot tag from your article. Just leave an edit summary along the lines of "PD source" and all will be well.

Incidentally, this bot only checks new articles for copied text. It is too difficult to have it evaluate older pages because many other websites copy content from Misplaced Pages, and there is no way for the bot to know which came first.

Please continue to contribute here, even if an article is tagged, and please do not throw the baby that is this helpful bot out with the bathwater of the occasional unwarranted tags. Thank you!!! -- But|seriously|folks  04:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not complaining about the general concept of the bot. I am complaining about the consistent tagging within one minute of the creating of an article. I am also complaining that it accused me of copyvio of a page that was itself a copyvio. That page was a copvio page of U.S. Supreme Court decisions on a student page in the U.K. I gave a footnote reference to the Supreme Court wording. What is the reasoning of the bot to do that? Why can't the bot wait more than one minute of article creating? I thought there were rules against instantly tagging a possibly good faith article on[REDACTED] within the same minute it is created. I will have to figure out a way to trick the bot if I am going to create any more U.S. Supreme Court decision articles. --Mattisse 13:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse, I'm sorry to hear that you are frustrated with the bot. Several other established editors have complained about it. I recommended at WP:AN/I that the bot not tag the article and not notify the article creator, but instead list the page at WP:SCV and let the editors their make an informed (human) judgment. If that were the case, then making Supreme Court decision articles might be less stressful.  :) This is the second time that I have recommended, so we'll see what happens.  :) --Iamunknown 14:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad to hear there are others and it is not just me. And I do not understanding the reasoning behind tagging a footnote referenced article within one minute of it's creation. --Mattisse 14:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

We are freed from Psychiatric abuse

Hurrah! Gone at last.Merkinsmum 12:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes! A miracle. But do not cease vigilance as the POV psychiatry people are not going to stop that easily. --Mattisse 13:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Coasters single yakety.yak.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Coasters single yakety.yak.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

re: Copyvio

My comments were based upon the statements you have made in general regarding this situation. However, yes, I did look at the article. I also took your comment that you quoted all the text that you had reused in good faith and as such made this recommendation. However, it was then pointed out to me that the portion of your article that states:

procedures for the civil commitment of persons who, due to "mental abnormality" or "personality disorder" are likely to engage in "predatory acts of sexual violence."

is a word for word duplicate of the source you provided (even the quotes are in the source) and it is not indicated in anyway as being a quote of the source. You appear to have reused text without marking it as a quotation. If the source is public domain, then reusing it was fine. However, you have left me confused as you have stated that the other site is violating the copyright of your source, but if it's public domain, then it's not a copyright violation. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 18:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There was no need for this. I suggest you read WP:POINT. bbatsell did not say it was a copyvio. He said it wasn't obvious it wasn't. And he's correct. If text matches between two sites, then investigation needs to be done to determine if there is an issue. In this case, there wasn't, but there is no way to tell without checking the status of the other site. -- JLaTondre 18:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You are allowed to tag your articles as {{db-author}}. However, remember that applies to only articles that you are the only contributor. If you apply it to other articles, it could be considered disruption. I think you are taking this way to seriously as no editor has accused you of copyvios and a bot is not a person. I'd suggest you take a short break and decide if this is really what you want instead of acting when you are upset. -- JLaTondre 18:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This is disruptive. If you do it again, I will block you. I would appreciate it if you'd remove the {{copyvio}} notices from the articles in question and Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/2007 October 20/Articles. --W.marsh 23:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I wish to comment here, and I hope that other Wikipedians will read this. A couple of days ago I went through more of Mattisse's Supreme Court articles and noticed that many of them included parts that were copied directly from their sources, thereby committing copyvio. Mattisse has a history of disruptive use as you can see in his/her Talk archives. Most of this is due to tagging hundreds of articles a day and trying to make a point. When someone disagrees with him/her, Mattisse resorts to claiming harassment and saying he/she will quit Misplaced Pages. I believe Mattisse's history should be known when more claims of difficulty with the user come up. - Cyborg Ninja 17:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

turn to spiritism

You could have a laugh by looking at the innumerable, immaculately NPOV lol articles about Spiritism. I sense a lot of potential merges.Merkinsmum 02:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not spiritualism, spiritism. Article been hijacked by one definition of the term (one religion- I was searching for a more general discussion of what's meant by the term, but the article just goes into the beliefs of a sect I hadn't really heard of- Kardecists, followers of one Allan Kardec. I'm off to sleep soon but article is full of unnecessary blather about historical figures which inspired this sect's creator. (doesn't sound much different to spiritualism really.)

Then the tangential articles

Spiritist_Codification as well as articles about each of the books. Spiritist doctrine Spiritist practice Spiritist centre History of Spiritism

I don't think these or all the probably numerous offshoots are noteable. But maybe I'm just disgruntled because I expected the 'spiritism' article to be about something more exciting than this sect. There's been some discussion on the talk page in the past about whether the article should be about this one sect or the wider meaning of the word. Sect seems to be more well known-so they claim- in Brazil. Might take your mind of things anyway lolMerkinsmum 02:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)