Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:31, 9 May 2006

Blazers history

I've phrased the section linking to Parts 1 and 2 correctly, because we don't really need to be told why we're going elsewhere, we just need a link. Anyway, you now need to write a small summary of the history to go on the main Blazers page (this is the convention - see Hong Kong), probably two or three decent paragraphs in length. Just the main events. Thanks. Harro5 July 8, 2005 23:07 (UTC)

• Just noticed your changes. Good work with the summary. Harro5 10:35, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

My mistake

Sorry. I mis-redirected something and can't figure out how to get out of the loop of bad karma I created. I was just writing a note to an administrator to see whether he could get rid of the problem. P0M 03:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

And in the process of trying to straighten this thing out I noticed that there is already an article on the Australian venomous funnel web spiders, similar title to mine, and it has a message on it suggesting it be merged with the one on the Sydney fws. Too bad I didn't notice that in the beginning, since that is pretty clearly what needs to be done. P0M

Nice Harbor Drive and ghost ramp pages. My only issues are:

• Harbor Drive should have been named Harbor Drive (Portland, Oregon) or something
• Its suprising that a ghost ramp page wasn't already created
• Are you sure that Harbor Drive had no intersections?
• I do see where you noted that it was a "crude freeway", but it should be in the intro. The into sounds like it was a freeway by modern standards. --Jason McHuff 07:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

one link per page please

Please review Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (links) which provides the guideines for links. I have been revmoving quite a few excessive links that you have added. Also, how about adding yourself to Category:Wikipedians in Oregon? Thanks, Cacophony 17:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Pirate Rock?

Please delete this article. You're clearly having a joke; None of the bands have anything in common.

Template:NBA

For your information, I reverted your recent edits to this template because they seem to break the following Misplaced Pages policies and discussions:

• Misplaced Pages:Fair use criteria:

  Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes)...

• Misplaced Pages:Avoid using meta-templates:

  "Meta-templates" as used in this article are those that are created and used to keep other templates in a standard format ... However, note that Wikimedia developers agree that templates within templates can be severely problematic to server performance and that, as such, they should be avoided for technical reasons.

Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent Changes Camp in Portland

FYI RecentChangesCamp Tedernst | talk 22:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

OR hwy stub

The folks at WP:WSS want you to propose the stubs you create before you create them... but lately that place has looked unfavorably upon all highway stubs (such as the Iowa one), so it might not be worth the hassle. Just thought you might want to know. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Ethnic Slurs, part 2

Regarding the page List of ethnic slurs, please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. --EngineerScotty 17:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• What the heck are you talking about? I just made a good faith edit to try to keep the page from descending into nonsense. Look down, there's a high horse under you. 155.84.57.253 17:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Fair enough; however your behavior in the past on the page has looked like vandalism. To avoid such messages in the future, I would suggest the following:
    • If you make a change which destroys content, and folks object to the change (which several have), discuss it in the talk page. Repeatedly making unilateral changes to a page, without discussing, is frowned upon.
    • When you use explainations like "reverting to last version by X"; that contains the implication that the prior version (that you eliminated) is vandalism--use of such explainations on versions which aren't obvious vandalism, is suspicious.
    • Since you are posting from an IP which is shared by multiple users; I would suggest creating yourself an account. It's free and easy to do; that way you won't be confused with the numerous other users who post from 155.84.57.253. (Plus, your IP address will no longer visible to anybody but the most senior of Misplaced Pages admins).
  • Certainly, the list of ethic slurs page is full of questionable stuff. But the correct way to make it a better page is to discuss stuff first. Tell us why you don't like certain entries--demanding verifiability is a good technique. The page needs cleaning up. But repeated unilateral deletions of content that others think belongs there, is not how to win friends and influence people on Misplaced Pages. I'm very easy to get along with :), and I'll gladly support you if you make a good argument. But I won't if you just delete stuff you don't like and not tell us why you think it shouldn't be there. --EngineerScotty 17:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

As You Predicted

On 6 December 2005 on the talk page for the Seigenthaler biography controversy, you commented --

Do I expect a frontal assault on Internet publishing (and therefore, on the First Amendment)? No; that would be too transparent, and politically untenable. Instead, I suspect we'll see a Communications Integrity Act of 2007 (give or take a year), which will seek to rewrite the fundamental bargain which was struck by the Communications Decency Act of 1996, and which has made the net (especially in the US) the wild and wooly place it is today.

-- as I looked at it today, I realized that your comment was incredibly prescient. See 'Create an e-annoyance, go to jail' ]. You really should take a look at it. I am trying to write something showing the connection between this article and the Seigenthaler thing. I believe there is one. Hope your holidays went well. Marcopolo 18:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Something tells me (fortunately) that this law is DOA. The mainstream press seems to be laughing at it, and it's far more transparent than I thought Congress would try. OTOH, some of the would-be censors in Congress seem to use the following tactic:

1. Pass a blatantly unconstitutional law restricting free speech.
2. See it thrown out by the courts.
3. Pass a less-blatant, and less-restrictive law, claiming its a "compromise".
4. If court throws that out, go back to step 3.
5. Otherwise, mission accomplished.

It's a tactic that's worked before. Sometimes, the resulting law does manage to be sufficiently narrowly targeted that it's not too odious; but sometimes not. It will be interesting to see the reaction over then next couple of days. --EngineerScotty 19:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

WP CS

Welcome aboard! It's always good to get new members, and especially good to get members motivated enough to try to start their own projects :-) Looking forward to some fruitful collaborations with you. Once place where we could use definitely use some more input is a draft manual of style for CS articles that a few of us are trying to put together. --Allan McInnes 07:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Magic number (programming)

Hi! Thank you for taking an interest in this article. However, your edit has been reverted, because that magic number is already listed below in the article. See you around. --huwr 00:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Banfield Freeway old exit numbers

If you get a chance, can you fill in the old exit numbers on Talk:Interstate 84 (west)? Thanks. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You included a few in the Mt. Hood Freeway article - I figured you knew them all. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah - thanks. I'll contact Ajbenj. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you respond to Talk:Mt. Hood Highway when you get a chance? Thanks. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

104S

Why do you think the S in 42S stands for south? More importantly, how is 104S not an accurate designation? 104S is listed in the route description PDF just like 42S. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

US 95 Spur is actually called that in the log. Unless 104S actually gets signed we should probably go by what ODOT calls it. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 17:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I have written a paragraph at Talk:Mt. Hood Highway - what do you think about it? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Highway numbers

Hmmm. I figure on the articles about the highways, we should include both, while on the articles on the routes, we should only use the highway numbers sparingly? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

To that end, what do you think about this edit? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, looks good. Do you know if there's any signage taking 99W north of Tigard? The route log ends it at I-5 exit 294, and signage, at least at US 26, seems to agree (Highway 1W is signed as Route 10 there).

Also, what do you think about the succession boxes on Route 69 (Oregon) as an alternate to the huge box now in use on most articles? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. talks about the 99W signage - apparently there's nothing south of the split with 10, and not much north of there. Several signs in that area (like ) also show US 26 going where it no longer goes - it's possible that ODOT screwed up when they posted the signs. Are these the only ones that show 99W? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Misplaced Pages

Template:Misplaced Pages has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion#Template:Misplaced Pages. Thank you.--Eloquence* 10:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Oprah Winfrey

Why do you keep changing her mother's name? What's your source? Her mother's name is already well documented and without conroversy. Rklawton 17:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Open Proxy List

I've scanned the list and the open proxies are now blocked. Thanks! Tawker 06:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Origin of "Anti-Pattern"

You said in Talk:Anti-pattern that you'd check for the origin of the term - did you? PJTraill 18:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: As You Predicted

Greetings and felicitations. I hope you are well.

With regard to a previous discussion of ours, you might want to take a gander at -- Makes certain operators of interactive computer services and Internet service providers liable to persons injured by false or defamatory messages posted on public forum websites.

Just when I thought I was being silly. Marcopolo 04:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: NJ state bill

You asked "Do you have any idea how this is likely to fare?"

In a word, No. This one simply blind-sided me. During the night I saw the link to it that Drudge put up. My virtually immediate thought on looking at the page was to write you a heads up. Up to that point I hadn't even logged on under my user name in at least a couple of weeks.

My guess is that by itself the bill is not especially relevant since I can't see how one state can pass effective legislation regulating the entire internet. The political dimensions, on the other hand, are I think consequential. I'm supose we disagreed about the implications of the legislation that Declan McCullagh wrote about back in January. With that one, I went back over the entire history of the legislation, farther apparently than McCullagh did meaning no disrespect to him, and I think that bill when considered in the context of existing law that it changes does exactly what McCullagh suggested it does, even though most of the legislators who voted for it probably had no idea that it does that.

During recent press statements regarding NSA monitoring of communications and possible legislation that would retro-actively legalize it, Senator Jay Rockfeller (D-WVa) argued that more review of the proposed legislation is necessary, "Or else we could get into something which is very dangerous, but which does happen, and that is that the Congress passes legislation which has very bad unintended consequences." I'm thinking, and I need to check this, that Rockfeller co-sponsored the other legislation.

The thrust of my thinking on this is that each of these things are elements, some of law, some of manufactured political consensus, and that the final edifice that is being constructed is at this point merely suspected rather than clearly seen.

I've done a lot more research into all of this as it relates to the Seigenthaler deal than is apparent right now. My thought back in December was that I would assemble what I was looking for very quickly and share it all with this community. Typically the research has continued on indefinitely. In addition, in my middle age I am more preoccupied with writing fiction. My thinking has been that I will use all of what I got to write a work of fantastic speculative fiction based upon all of it, which I would share through my user page somehow or other. But sadly it has all gotten simply out of hand. The implications touch upon issues dating back centuries.

Ah, well, eventually something may happen with that. In the meantime, I read the article on Section 230. Judging by the history of the article, I am guessing that most of it is your work, and I am thinking it is very good quality work. Marcopolo 16:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Pirate rock

I have nominated this for deletion, since we have no sources and there's no way to know which bands are included. Thought you might want to know, so you can edit or comment on the deletion or something. Ned Wilbury 15:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Section 230 expert

Hi there. I've noticed that you're a bit of an expert on Section 230. I thought I would introduce myself, as I am writing my law school thesis on the application of 230(c)(1) to Misplaced Pages. Based on my research (I've read all 50-ish of the 230(c)(1) cases - took a while!), Misplaced Pages is probably not going to be liable for defamatory speech that appears on its pages. But, that's because of the very broad reading that courts have given 230(c)(1)'s language - a reading that isn't self-evident, particularly in light of the legislative history. My thesis is a rebuttal to those that argue for the narrowing of judicial interpretation of 230(c)(1) to fit Congressional intent. Damned thing is due in a few weeks and I still don't have a "rebuttal" part yet, heh heh, but I figure there have to be fairly good reasons out there not to impose liability on projects such as Misplaced Pages.

Oh, the URL for the NJ bill has changed (not sure why). The new one is: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/A1500/1327_I2.HTM. The interesting thing is that state law preemption only extends to those state laws that are "inconsistent" with 230 (47 USC 230(e)(3)). Technically, I don't think this is directly inconsistent, though I think a court might find some inconsistency at a higher level of generality.

Anyway, I plan on adding some to the 230 article, as I get around to it. I just figured it would polite to introduce myself. And if you have any thoughts on the matter - please! - I need to graduate.

One last thing - I'm looking for changes in Misplaced Pages policies in reaction to the Seigenthaler incident. So far I have that unregistered users can no longer create pages and the whole "Office Action" thing. As you've been around for a bit longer, I'm hoping that you might have a bit better perspective on that.

I look forward to conversing with you. --Ksm10 21:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

WIkiproject Oregon

Wikiproject Oregon is now up and running! I invite you to join at WP:WPOR PDXblazers 22:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look.

Hi,

I decided that we were getting a lot of information on what spiders are dangerous on the Black Widow page so I wanted to break that out. I started an article on Dangerous_spiders and before I could even get the formatting straight somebody had fixed a first-order deletion notice on it claiming that the assertion that some spiders are dangerous is "subjective." My whole point was to have a central place where we could assemble the LD-50s and deaths per thousand incidents statistics. (I was quite surprised to see that the widow spiders actually kill more people world wide than the spiders with more problematical venom. I guess that is like more people getting killed with .45 calibre pistol fire than are killed by larger bore elephant guns.) Anyway, if you have time please take a look at the article. I have tried to assemble some of the stats but right now things are a bit murky, e.g., one site seems to have totally lost a decimal point -- either that or the spider's venom volume is bigger than its head. But the general conclusions seem pretty consistent and useful. It doesn't really matter for ranking whether one study measures venom volumes one way and another study does something else so their numbers don't match -- as long as proportionally about the same.

Thanks. P0M 21:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I agree about the tarantulas, too. http://www.bighairyspiders.com/bites.shtml has some reports of bites whose consequences go beyond what I would call merely painful or distressing. Poecilotheria regalis (Indian ornamental) spider bites can produce really alarming consequences. Todd Gearheart is one of the tarantula dealers who seems to have a real love for and interest in tarantulas, and he is very careful to indicate which spiders are aggressive and which spiders have medically significant venom. I bought a huntsman spider from him because I wanted to understand why I once had my pencil attacked by one in a manner that seemed definitely aggressive (although probably it was really prey error), and he was emphatic about the need to avoid bites. Even in the case of the Australian and Brazilian problem biters, descriptions of bites generally indicate that the spiders are giving "Keep away!" signals before they bite. Many of the tarantula bites that I've read about seem to occur when the spiders are surprised in or near their shelters. Even so, they are not gentle and inoffensive creatures like my Avicularia metallica. (In near darkness I once pushed her from the wrong end and wondered why she would not move.)

I suspect that there are medically significant venoms out there that we may never learn about simply because the spiders are not inclined to bite and generally manage to escape contact. I'm not sure what to do about the S. Asian spiders with significant venom. There is one spider in Taiwan that has a very bad reputation, but not many bites have been medically evaluated.

The LD-50 information is not very relevant without knowledge of the amount of venom available to the spider, and even then some species are believed not to hold back where others may generally give dry bites. What would be the most useful information is the number of deaths per 1000 bites, but there don't seem to be good statistics in most cases. I'v got to find a good example of a multi-row, multi-column table and start collecting the evaluations of various kinds that are available.

Some of the information that is available on the WWW is really wild. A while back there was a spate of evaluations of bites by Phidippus johnsoni jumping spiders. A dermatological magazine identified them as the biggest problem biters in all of California. I can't put my observations on Misplaced Pages, but I bought one and have handled it many times without seeing any indication that it might go out of its way to bite people. On the other hand it's a very heavy-bodied spider so it moves very slowly for a jumping spider and could easily be caught by kids or even adults who get attracted by its attractive coloration. I've gotten deserved defensive bites from much smaller Phidippus specimens and it's not fun, so I can imagine that a quadruple dose of similar venom probably would create a lasting impression. It may be that a fair number of people get bitten by these spiders, but the statistics probably wouldn't give an indication of whose fault it was.

Thanks again. I've heard no more from the original critic. P0M 10:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Back again. I've worked out a table of reported stats on the main problem biters. Please have a look at the table I have created for Spiders having medically significant venom as there are some strange consequences to some of the figures I've found. In particular, the Atrax spiders are said to have 140 mg. of venom. I suspect that it must be 14, which would still give them enough venom to kill a large man. Given the fact that the LD-50s reported are mostly for mice, the results cannot be very well applied to humans with any reliability. Nevertheless they seem to hang together fairly well with what is known about bites anecdotally. I need to standardize some units, convert from nanograms, etc., but as long as I do that simple math correctly that part should be easy. I'd like to know how much an Atrax spider weighs. If I could remember how many bees/pound there are I guess I could estimate it fairly well.

I agree with the critic of the spider page that the Phidippus johnsoni probably doesn't need to be discussed there, but maybe we need a place for "spider myths". There is already a good website by that name. If what I have been playing with is indeed a P. johnsoni, then their reputation is entirely undeserved. I've manipulated her up onto my hand in a way that surely let her know that something was coming after her, and she hasn't even made a threat display yet. P0M 01:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem appears to be that I do not understand what "dry weight" means. The same medical article gave a much more reasonable amount of venom when reporting amounts harvested and amounts obtained by dissection--about 1/20 of the other figure. P0M 03:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Niagakiw

Thanks for the notice, EngineerScotty. I've issued Niagakiw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) an indefinite block. Regards, Sango123 (e) 00:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

All right, the sockpuppets aren't stopping anytime soon, so I've sprotected the page. Thanks, Sango123 (e) 00:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Misplaced Pages

Thank you for your message on my talk page. I was aware of that. However a blog or web forum of disgruntled users would hardly qualify as a reputable publication per WP:V. So on that basis wikipedia review (sic) could still be excluded. An article interviewing Lir, Blu Aardvark (Jeffrey Latham), or Selina would be a more suitable source. I added {{fact}} because of the weasel terms. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 18:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think these edits by Malber explain things personal attack and two. Also User page vandalism and he was blocked for other personal attacks and again for talk page vandalism (which he still does) DyslexicEditor 20:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages

Which "controversial changes" do you refer on!? Is that new name for the true facts on wikipedia, or is it seems to me like Misplaced Pages is becoming more and more authoritarian place! Regards,

Rens

Experts

Yes, it can become somewhat controversial this topic, I am afraid. Anyway, more editing to do.KimvdLinde 05:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)