Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:29, 4 August 2008

Female editors on Misplaced Pages

If women on Misplaced Pages require out-of-process knights in shining armor to protect them against the rampant sexism on Misplaced Pages, then they're worse off than just the appearances of the dominant shining white males appear to give them.

There is no due process on Misplaced Pages that can and will deal with the chauvinistic attitudes that female editors face in cyber space that rage on Misplaced Pages. And the latest example of the absolute failure of all leadership parts of Misplaced Pages to realize that there is no due process that deals with this issue is sad.

Women don't win when they're treated like paternal subjects of their great white shining armor daddy who comes to their rescue because no one would dare make rules that protect them from the sexism. The rules might have to be enforced evenly, not arbitrarily and when convenient after all. --Blechnic (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles I've started at Misplaced Pages.

"Surely no-one disagrees that flinging essay links around as if they represented policy is a good idea; wanton essaylinkmongering is rarely productive."

A useful comment for administrators like Gwen Gale who are so found of hammering newbies with "don't template the newcomers." --Blechnic (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Tierra Redonda Mountain

My fault - I did a copy-vio check, not a content check, so forgot to remove it during my complex sequence of button pushes! Fritzpoll (talk) 22:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It just gets weirder

A vanity page proudly displaying barnstars from a single purpose sock puppet account. Now that takes the cookie. --Blechnic (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Your message

If you don't want people to think you quit, take that "retired" banner down. That's for people who've actually called it quits and aren't editing anymore. It's a little hard to square with your level of activity. Daniel Case (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. I really don't want to get into it with you. Your response to my response on WT:DYK when I explained how I reviewed that article was all you needed to say. I had expressed some hope when you first stalked off that you might actually lend some help instead of shouting from the sidelines. To my pleasant surprise, you have actually been doing that — keep it up. Let's keep our discussions focused on spotting plagiarism and not each other's motivations. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And on further reflection, I realize that was unnecessary and I apologize. I will be striking it through on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Re Carol Spears

Both the admins (including me) who previously opposed the community ban have commented that they are no longer opposing, per the discussion you recently started at ANI. If you wish to repropose, with links to the previous discussion, I will support and hopefully quickly have the editor banned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Re Madame Zingara

It is now a completely non-factual article. We are not a restaurant. We are a travelling dinner theatre. We are not fixed in one location. We travel around the world. The information we put up regarding our various shows done in our past were all referenced with citations. It has none of our history in it. Madamezingara (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... My friend, did you really just give a last warning to an indef blocked and banned account?

I'm about to protect the page for abuse by the account holder, but I think you should refactor your warning first - it looks a little hollow, truth be told. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay... I shall now protect the page, with your warning that she will be blocked left on the page.

Have you ever seen Life of Brian, where the Centurion threatens the condemned man who is insulting him? "What you going to do, Bignose? Not crucify me?" LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

RE:Cyanophage

By continuing to remove an extremely useful overview of cyanophage publications, how exactly does this improve a page? Yes it is not ideal, but if people are to continue to improve this page then they need to understand what cyanophage are and what they do. This is provided in the titles of these publications, yes is need refining and distilling to provide an overview. But the basic information is already there. Removing this information is not exactly useful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.58.183 (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

moving

You seem to have messed up some of my edits in process by the move of PRUPRIM. The move was correct, & I should have first done it myself, but please check the times on the edit histories. I've redone the edits, of course. No lasting harm DGG (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

POV indian IP

Hi good news 72.138.120.177 has been blocked for 31 hours. You, myself, Total film and Shshshsh have had to continuously revert him. If he returns to it again then he will be blocked indefinately soon enough ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ 17:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

huh?

what'd I do? There's no way you're already responding to the ReqArb I jsut made agreeing with you, I JUST posted it. ThuranX (talk) 06:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the Wilhelmina Will stuff. gotcha. ThuranX (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image manipulation experience

Impressive. And truly out of curiosity, what is your opinion on the false colored pictures from SEM's? -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 12:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree about colored SEM pictures. Mainly because they are patently false, and I don't think they are used frequently in the scientific community. My feeling though about scientific uses of images on WP is that they probably wouldn't get much use, not because our editing standards are too lax, but because the specimen is usually not identified or controlled to the level that is required for many publications. Personally, as long as the image isn't data in itself (documenting the result of some experiment) then I feel non-deceptive manipulation is fine. Maybe you disagree -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 15:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The good, the bad, the indifferent ... the fun

Indeed. I know. When I taught at the University of X, I reserved my fiercest punishments for the plagiarists. They got zeros, and little mercy, and if they lost their scholarships, tough. Some people just don't get it: I still find it baffling that some people think plagiarism is OK. On a more pleasant topic, check out this, which contains some perfectly wonderful free stuff, including the classic paper on the Monterey (scroll to 273) and even better (since the Bramlette is pre-plate-tectonics -- hard to imagine such a time existed) scroll to 301. Good stuff. I read them both, realized how many technical terms I'd forgotten, felt disheartened, and then went and did something else. I really don't want to get it wrong; it's too easy to screw up in areas where I'm not credentialed -- hell, it's even easy to screw up there. I've made, and mostly fixed, ghastly mistakes in 17th century music where I allegedly have a doctorate (allegedly, since I'm just pixels on a computer monitor, not a person or anything). Anyway I'd love to do more writing on the earth sciences. I'm still banging out all those articles on oil fields in Kern County, which for some reason I find fun. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please revert

• I replied at my talk page, but in case you haven't seen it before you see this: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_guide#Responding_to_others.27_statements is where it states that you're supposed to reply in your own section. - Penwhale | 08:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• I restored your passage that I removed here to under your own section. - Penwhale | 08:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Another universe?

Not sure if that's a comment about our non-intersecting edit patterns, or the fact that I'm blunt about how I responded to OR's comment that you and I are associated. ThuranX (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

OOooohh! yeah, totally missed that. Actually, my local sub is almost 100% non-marvel, expect the Marvel Knights Punisher, and Kick-Ass. I read some of the Marvel stuff on the racks, though, and Marvel's finally in a strong storyline recovery, after the 1990's, when I dropped them like a hot turd. ThuranX (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Good eye

Time for me to return the compliment. The soldier on the right was the first one to catch my eye, and made me start wondering about the others. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 09:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sapo National Park

Regarding this edit that you made to Sapo National Park, I just want to point out the second part of that sentence. Conservation International and WWF give slightly different classifications. Thanks for fixing this, by the way. –Black Falcon 00:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that CI and WWF disagree on their classification, but rather that they seem to use different classification schemes. The Upper Guinean forests ecosystem is recognised by both CI and WWF, but WWF further subdivides this into three ecoregions: Western Guinean lowland forests, Eastern Guinean forests, and Guinean montane forests. –Black Falcon 00:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not an expert on this subject, so it may well be that the current formulation is unnecessarily over-complicated or somewhat muddled. I'll take a closer look at WWF's description of the Western Guinean lowland forests, but for now I've reverted the edit so that "Western Guinean lowland forests" is not listed twice: "Sapo National Park is located in the Western Guinean lowland forests ecosystem ... according to Conservation International,and in the Western Guinean lowland forests ecoregion, according to the World Wide Fund for Nature's ecoregions classification scheme."

With regard to the issue of redlinks, which you raised on the talk page, I think that they are technically permitted in featured articles, but their presence is discouraged. I can work on converting all of the redlinks into bluelinks, and I've already created Sinoe River. (I've not been able to find much information via a standard web search, so I'll be searching Google Books shortly.) In addition to the changes that you mentioned on the talk page, what other major issues do you think need to be addressed before this can be proposed for FA? Thanks, –Black Falcon 01:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

When I first started researching Sapo National Park, I also thought that the Sinoe River was located somewhere in its heart. However, the river bounds the park's western side, and the 2003 expansion of the park did not alter that (see page 3, Section 2.1 (b) and (c)).

Given the biodiversity of the park, I agree that there should be more information than there currently is. For instance, the chimpanzees, pygmy hippos, forest elephants, and duikers currently have only eight sentences (14 lines of text at a screen resolution of 1200x800) devoted to them, so there is definitely room for expansion. –Black Falcon 01:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No such luck...

...it was the latest contribution by an IP hopping vandal.

(diff) 08:44, 3 August 2008 . . Browser cache (Talk | contribs | block) (14 bytes) (← Created page with 'Kotla Was here')

_Gb 08:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

And rightly so..._Gb 08:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Salted Pulmonata

Thanks for your message - I realised what it was about. If a relative outsider may give some advice, I think you would do well to drop the matter now. A number of other editors are offering her help and advice, and I think her operations will be under sufficient scrutiny. I think, as I said, that you have done a good service in raising the problem and persisting until notice was taken, but there is a real danger that if you continue to post to her, or raise the matter at AN/I again, the impression will get about that (a) you are an obsessive harasser and (b) she is a persecuted innocent. That would not help anybody. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Wilhelmina Will's vandalisms and copyvios

Her existing copy vios and vandalisms that need edited

I'll just start going through her articles.

Here's the first one, found rather too quickly for it to be sporty, but exactly what I think will occur going through her articles.

The Wildlife Experience

Here's a line from the article: "The large format screen, designed by iWERKS, is composed of a proprietary reflective material and measures 45-by-60 feet, covering a 2,700-square-foot (250 m²) area."

Here's her putting it in Misplaced Pages.

Here's the web page she took it from.

And the line on that web page: "The large format screen, designed by iWERKS, is composed of a proprietary reflective material and measures 45-by-60 feet, covering a 2,700 square-foot area."

How many more copy vios from this one article will I find? How many more from all of her articles?

Is this what she wants, needs, someone to go through and find all of the copy vios she inserted into Misplaced Pages, all of the vandalisms with misinformation?

No problem, someone has to clean up after vandals. I'll keep a page with a running total. Or maybe a few pages when these get over the easy load limit.

--Blechnic (talk) 05:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Someone else wrote that one but did not create it. Here: I even asked Antandrus if it should be made, this is listed in his archives page: No. 26. Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)