Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:49, 26 January 2010

Satellite temperature measurements

I would welcome your input to the discussion related to the new public domain image of RSS and UAH global temperature anomaly data here: Satellite Temperature Measurements -- Update the Graphic. Thank you. SunSw0rd (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Abuse Filter 82

AF:82

Just before Archival, it seemed there was support for making this disallow those types of edits, can it please be changed to make it so?— Dædαlus 22:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

vacation to the Thesis valley

Good luck with that. I hear it is a beautiful place. Are you going to be around SF this weekend? I'm thinking of coming to the meetup Sunday. +sj+ 03:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

font in your graphs

Hi Robert, may I know which font you used in most of your graphs (which are outstanding, btw)? Thanks. By the way, we seem to be at the same career stage. I am just starting to write my thesis these days, but as usual wikipedia proves to be a good distraction... SPLETTE :] 00:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

AbuseFilter

Please see Misplaced Pages talk:Edit filter#Filter Cleanup, a filter/filters which you were the last to edit is/are on the list of filters that I identified to disable. Please comment there if you do not want this/these filter/filters disabled. Prodego 18:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Good luck

Just wanted to wish you luck with your job hunting and all that. Hiding T 21:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Question about research

I wanted to ask a question about some research I want to do. I want to search approximately 20 different terms in google and find out where the Misplaced Pages page for each term ranks compared to other online resources. Specifically, I would be looking at terms for dermatologic conditions. So, for example, with the following search on my results screen Misplaced Pages is the first entry, followed by medscape. Can I use google trends/"Google Insights for Search" to accomplish this? Or is there some other way I can compare google results? ---kilbad (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

cite.php story

I'm working on a draft of a story about cite.php changes here, but any additional info/background/links to discussion etc would be great. Thanks! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 19:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

References

I saw the article in signpost about the fix you pushe through for the references tag. Firstly, can I say thank you for taking this initiative and getting this change agreed and pushed through - I've not doubt it will result in a far better editing experience.

I'm thinking of a next stage to this: I imagine it would be fairly straigtforward to set up a bot that goes through existing articles and moves references to the bottom. What do you think? I don't have any bot experience so it's not something that I could do but would be interested in pushing this through? AndrewRT(Talk) 16:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

A large-scale, bot-based conversion is an issue for the larger community to decide, but in any event, it is not something I plan to work on. Dragons flight (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a different thought. We should have the editor go ahead and put the first full reference directly in the text, then future references in the format <ref name = "foo"> (+ full ref info)</ref> for the first reference, then a re-used reference could have <ref name = "foo"|page = 15 />. Then the system would place in the references section the full reference, and following that would be a reference to the reference, similar to the Harvard style notation/reference system. Except it wouldn't require two edits (or two sections). The problem I'm trying to solve is that repeated references don't currently allow for page numbers when they're re-used, and that's what I'm looking to have changed. It's also less cumbersome than the {{Rp}} template, and would look better within the text. This solves a different problem than the changes that just got put through, but I thought you're a good person to ask, and I couldn't make the changes I'm thinking about anyway...

So does this all make sense? And is it do-able? Hires an editor (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks

Thank you for the cite.php update! I've been wishing for exactly this for years. Good job! --Zvika (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Fake (band)

A tag has been placed on Fake (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Climate Change Attribution.png

File:Climate Change Attribution.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Climate Change Attribution.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Misplaced Pages, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Misplaced Pages, in this case: ]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Glacier Mass Balance Map.png is now available as Commons:File:Glacier Mass Balance Map.png. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Greenhouse Gas by Sector.png is now available as Commons:File:Greenhouse Gas by Sector.png. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Global Warming Map.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Global Warming Map.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Str right/doc

I really disagree with your addition of Template:Title disambig text to the See also section of Template:Str right/doc, but am not going to edit war over that. Please note that I have extensively updated the documentation page of Template:Title disambig text, which has also resulted in it becoming more like the documentation pages of Template:Str right and its related templates. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Structurally, I think our goal should be to do what we can to help people find what they are looking for. Which is why I think it makes imminent sense to include that in the see also. I reverted so I could explain my reasoning in the log, but if you'd prefer to take it out and start a discussion / recruit a third opinion, I would not put it back again. I will thank you for the improved documentation. I noticed that the documentation across many of the string templates has been improved and I guess you are responsible for a significant chunk of that. So thanks. Keep up the good work. Dragons flight (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

I have nominated List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (3rd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

((fmbox)) categorisation

Dragons flight: Your {{fmbox}} categorisation is causing a problem. See my message at Template talk:Fmbox#Category proposal.

--David Göthberg (talk) 03:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. Manning (talk) 08:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

NOTCONTENT

Hi. Regarding Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)#Disambiguation_pages_are_not_articles. There would be a great potential use for a __NOTCONTENT__ tag. The "navigational pages" are currently being examined/discussed at User:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft. (It's an attempted summary of a years-long dispute that has spanned dozens of pages and threads, examining whether "navigational pages" are welcome in mainspace or not. It's stemming from some editors being very displeased with the "Outlines" (formerly "Basic topic lists") project, but I believe the root issue is this wider one.)

So far that page is really short and concise (but densely packed). I'm trying to get admin Karanacs uptodate on all the overlapping issues, and am expecting some replies from her there in the next few days (see User_talk:Karanacs#Outline_bump). We're still trying to find ways to look at the situation, in order to make possible solutions clearer (a new namespace, or new guideline, or ?). Then we intended on taking our thoughts to a wider venue (VP or RfC or etc). But your idea might be the cleanest/ideal solution.

(Feel free to reply here, there, or other. I'm replying here instead of the VP thread, to avoid having a sudden influx of overopinionated/underinformed editors arrive at the RfC draft ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Unblock

Hey, it's OK. Don't bother yourselves too much about unblocking that library IP. I was at the library earlier today. Am back home now. Thanks for your help and attention. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit requests

I'd like to implement a feature in two templates that you protected: see Template_talk:Str_index and Template_talk:Str_sub. These templates end up using {{FormattingError}} in some cases, which puts the page in Category:Pages_with_incorrect_formatting_templates_use. It is common and not incorrect for example pages to show these errors, so FormattingError has an argument called "nocategory" that can be set to "true" to prevent categorization, while retaining the error message. There are a number of pages that are currently in this category that should not be, for this reason. I've made all edits that I could to fix this, but I need to access these two templates as well. Can you un-protect them so I can do this, or make the changes yourself?     — SkyLined (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, this has been resolved.     — SkyLined (talk) 12:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Science desk

Hi,

Why did you replace the deleted/moved conversation about file formats from the Science desk today?

Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I didn't intentionally. As per the comment in I was trying to section edit. Not sure what happened. Dragons flight (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

RE:

He want to archive his talk page :). I thank that he deleted his talk page. Sorry for the mistakes. --Diegusjaimes complaints 23:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Muslim

Thank you for providing at the Misc. Ref Desk an excellent response about historical Muslim thought. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternative referencing style

Hi. Yesterday I became enmeshed in an argument about the use of the alternative source referencing system here and here . To cut a long story short an editor took exception to the use of the recently enabled process which was agreed here . I think it is a much more preferable system personally, although I can see the point of view of other editors. However, the reason for writing to you is to ask whether the relevant part of WP:FN should be amended to present the new alternative? As you can see, the other editor involved took exception because he felt it was employing a reference format style that is not currently in use on Misplaced Pages and not documented in a guideline or policy. Documenting it in the style guide would prevent any similar misunderstanding in the future as well as promoting its use. Regards Leaky Caldron 13:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of medical advice question at RefDesk

FYI, I just wanted to let you know that I removed a thread in which you participated, and in doing so I specifically commented on your response in my Talk page comment here. I want to emphasize that I have great respect for you as an editor - I'm only concerned about the edit. -- Scray (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Award

For sterling service on the date of 10 November 2009, In fixing a glaring problem (while other editors were apparently too busy 'bitch slapping' each other) to wit, Fixing 'cite errors' on an extremely High Profile article, "Fort Hood Shooting", I Hereby award you this COOKIE.

220.101.28.25 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

--220.101.28.25 (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

fundraiser stats

Hi,

You said this:

"The first 9 hours of the 2008 fundraiser (0:00 to 9:00 UTC) had 682 donors raising $19022 (max donation $200). The first 9 hours of this fundraiser (5:00 to 14:00 UTC) has had approximately 515 donors raising $23300 (max donation $3000). It is too early to be drawing strong conclusions, but the very early averages are similar."

a) Can I quote this in the signpost? b) can you run the numbers for me for the first day of the relaunch, starting Thursday evening? I don't know if there's an easy way to get the stats; I only know about the contribution feed (is that what you were using)? thanks! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 04:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

never mind, I found the numbers! thanks! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 04:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Filter 131

Please see Talk:Muhammad#What happened to filter 131?

I thought this filter was active; it was working well at one point. But recently editors have come by and deleted images from the Muhammad article. Does the filter need some tuning? ~Amatulić (talk) 06:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Disequilibrium

Hi Robert,

I see you undid my edit, so I'm interested to know how I've misinterpreted. The sentence is: "The increasing measured fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 100 years implies that the level of equilibrium between sources and sinks of CO2 is rising."

That doesn't make sense to me. I read it as "the system is equilibrating," but we know the opposite to be true: the atmosphere/ocean system is being driven further from equilibrium, continuously. The sentence only makes sense to me if we substitute "disequilibrium" -- because sinks are failing to keep up with sources, due to the new human-caused carbon flux.

Alternately, you could say that "level of equilibrium is falling," but that's rather confusing.

Good page otherwise!

Jim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrett808 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Carbon dioxide in the Earth system is partitioned between the atmosphere, the biosphere, and the oceans. As the associated section of the article states, the natural fluxes between these reservoirs are much larger than the annual human emissions. Hence the amount of carbon in the atmosphere exists in quasi-equilibrium with the sources and sinks in the other parts of the Earth system. In order for carbon dioxide to accumulate in the atmosphere (the smallest of the three reservoirs) implies that the level at which sources and sinks are balanced must have risen. Humans are responsible for adjusting that balance by adding additional sources, but the issue is more complicated than simply saying that we burned 8 GtC and therefore the atmosphere has 8 GtC more CO2.

Or put more succinctly, higher CO2 in the atmosphere means that concentration of CO2 required such that sources and sinks would balance (i.e. the equilibrium level) must have increased. Since the existing phrasing was confusing to you, perhaps you can suggest an alternative wording that would capture the same content? Dragons flight (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Robert, thanks for the reply. I honestly thought that was a typo! I see what you mean now -- the sinks (until recently) have offset the human input, which is to say that the fluxes into the sinks have increased with the anthropogenic forcing. (I say "until recently," because we have new evidence that the ocean sink is starting to fail.) My original thought was that if the system were in equilibrium, atmospheric CO2 would not be increasing.

I'm not sure how this could be phrased more clearly. To be in equilibium, the sum of the fluxes must be zero, and if I understand you correctly, you want to say that the magnitudes of complementary fluxes are larger ("rising equilibrium level"), but still sum to zero. Maybe it could say, "The increasing measured fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 100 years implies that the system of sources and sinks is equilibrating at a higher level of atmospheric CO2." Not sure that's clearer.

My other source of confusion was conflating the flux equilibrium with the radiative equilibrium with space. This is where the system is clearly in disequilibrium -- even if all anthropogenic sources stopped emitting today, we'd still have a couple of centuries of warming "in the pipeline" until thermodynamic equilibrium is reached. It might be worth a sentence or two to distinguish these two concepts.

Anyhoo, thanks for the clarification, and thanks for the great Global Warming Art! Do you have any plans to update those beautiful graphs with more recent data? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrett808 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You have mail

Please check your e-mail. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

when you get around to..

This let me know. There are some powerful tools now like WikiTrust (see http://wikitrust.soe.ucsc.edu/) which could combine with your kind of thing in an interesting way. We are still toying with spliting the Schools Misplaced Pages website off from the DVD version and if it could work together it might be worth a look--BozMo talk 21:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Double Standard

So, when someone accuses me of vandalism for posting information they don't like, that's ok. When I point out that it's censorship like found in 1940's Nazi Germany, you accuse ME of making a personal attack? The problem with BOTH of you is that you put politics ahead of truth, and you are PRECISELY the reason why Misplaced Pages has ZERO credibility on any topic that has an impact on politics -- because of you and all of the others in the Politically Correct mafia who go around with a campaign of intimidating anyone who doesn't toe the party line. It's a crock of shit, and you know it. Akulkis (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

AF Sandbox

That data was from September though. :) Mr.Z-man graciously reran the query, so here's the new data for you: . I'd love to have you back to help keep the filters under control. It's been quite a job without you at times. Prodego 21:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hurricane Intensity Shift.png

Thanks for uploading File:Hurricane Intensity Shift.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZooFari 06:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Merge

Because their duplicates. Special:Import would normally take care of this automatically, but I don't want the January 2005 revision from Nost.Misplaced Pages in the page history. Graham87 10:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

GIF scaling

Hello. Can you have a look here:

• commons:Commons:Graphics village pump#GIF scaling (animated and non-animated) still not working --Timeshifter (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy Martin

You left a note about Andys lawsuit against the Wikimedia foundation on the discussion page of "his" article. Send him some flowers (or chocolate, if he likes this more) last year during the fund raising campaign, a german 3rd class politian filed a law suite against wikiepdia.de - the best publicity ever for WP - donations rocketed in Germany. The topic is already in a major german journal . By the way: good luck with your thesis. --Hagen Graebner (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Non free content use on wikipedia

I notice your comments at the discussion on drawings of people. Would you care to comment at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Rama. It would be extremely useful to have comment from Wikipedians with a good understanding of the Misplaced Pages policy.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, re animated gif problem (+PS - another editor was asking me to "correct" bugzilla:22041

Many thanks, and PS :-) ... bugzilla:22041 is about thumbnails, but issue is with file's themselves. (Of course, I'm probably not describing this right ... and solving one will probably find the other ... anyway ...

Someone followed up with me this way:

Excuse my following up on your talk page after marking resolved in Village pump (Technical), but just making sure I've done all I can do. LoL Cheers. Proofreader77 00:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• PPS Finally read your user page note: www.globalwarmingart.com. Excellent. Proofreader77 00:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Snowball Earth

Thanks

I never thanked for your condolence note last year, but I appreciate it more than I can possibly express. All the best, in friendship. Guettarda (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Cite.php

Hi Dragons flight,

Following from the discussion on citations at the Village pump, I played a little with Cite.php extention. As you may have got from that discussion I am greatly in favour of templated citations. Others expressed a (great) dislike for them for a number of quite fair reasons, particularly the slowness of pulling in many templates and the manner in which they break-up text when used in line.

During that discussion I floated the idea of modifying Cite.php to do the templating of citations instead of transcluding a template. My suggestion was that they could be done like this:

• <ref first="John" last="Murphy" title="Quisque Quis Orci Magna" publisher="Printing House Press" location="London" year="2009" page="55" isbn="978-3-16-148410-0" />

Doing so would eliminate the slowness caused by trancluding the current cite templates. Using your WP:LDR addition would address the issue of breaking-up of text when used in line.

I've made up a working example of Cite.php that accepts these kind of attributes and creates a rudimentary templated citation from them. It doesn't break current way of doing things.

I'm not sure of how to float the suggestion of integrating this idea into Cite.php. (Clearly the template is too rudimentary as yet to be actually integrated - and there would need to be consensus about what the citation style would be.) Should I contact User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason? Since we had some brief contact during the discussion at the Village Pump I thought I would ask you first.

Regards, --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. Avar is no longer maintaining it, and I am probably a better contact anyway at this point. Short answer? There is not a chance in hell that developers will allow the Cite extension to dictate reference formatting. The current system is flexible for a reason since Cite needs to support many different WMF and non-WMF sites. And in general everything in Mediawiki favors giving more control over content to the user and less to developers. There are alternative proposals for greatly speeding up the rendering time of citations that won't change behavior, so I wouldn't worry about that. It will be fixed eventually. But if people want to reform the styles, they really should be working on standardizing the templates.

In terms of what might be possible though, I have contemplated for some time allowing ref to pass parameters. In other words, have:

<ref name="bob" pages="99-102">{{cite journal| ...}}</ref>

be the same as

<ref name="bob">{{cite journal| ...| pages="99-102"}}</ref>

If that is designed so that things like <ref name="bob" pages="657" /> and <ref name="bob" pages="42-65" /> can render separately then it could address the main outstanding use case. In a post of on the board you asked about having the software fill in details based on partial references (e.g. ISBN numbers). That is probably possible too though I think other things would have to happen first. Dragons flight (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Damn, I just missed this. I just opened a bug on it. That the citation style would have to be easily definable was something that I was aware of. I don't think that would be insurmountable.

Thanks anyway, --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)