Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:00, 5 May 2008

improper section in MOSNUM

Yes, this green slab has been in MOSNUM for some time now. Consensus has not been gathered for it, and I can't understand why it was slapped on the project page at an early stage. I think it's time to take action.

I'm quite happy to be part of a consensus-gathering exercise, but only using due process.

If you take the appropriate action, I'll certainly support you. TONY (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It's distressing watching the Wiki process fall apart at MOSNUM. What are we to do about this aggressive turn of events? TONY (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Beware of non units

Search for the text Chaparrel on this diff to see an instance of incorrectly adding units. Thanks! —Mrand 15:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right. Thanks for spotting it and fixing it. I appreciate that. Lightmouse (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You should probably avoid instances in ref tags or quotation marks such as . --NE2 17:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right. That is a mistake. They are very difficult to spot when in long quotes but I do catch most of them. That one slipped through. Thanks for spotting it and bringing it to my attention. Lightmouse (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's another . jnestorius 23:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops. You are quite right. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Misplaced Pages namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. A good idea for those that are interested. Forgive me for declining to get involved. Lightmouse (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Deindenting

Lightmouse, I would ask that you not perform such mass deindent operations like on Template talk:Convert. While it is normally okay to modify indentations to preserve the flow of conversation, some indentations are set up intentionally, and sometimes third-party deindenting disrupts said flow, making it more difficult to read (for example, the "BCE/CE dates to BC/AD dates" section now reads differently than before, because context is lost. Just think about this in the future. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 19:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Multiple indents make it difficult and sometimes impossible to read on a small screen. There is no intention to remove context. If that has happened, then it is wrong and should be reverted. The intention is to set an example that others can follow. Some readers are fortunate enough to have large screens. Some are not. Lightmouse (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

St. Stephen's Episcopal School (Austin, Texas)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to St. Stephen's Episcopal School (Austin, Texas), is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Misplaced Pages:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. I have reverted your edit. --Danorton 21:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to St. Stephen's Episcopal School (Austin, Texas). Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Misplaced Pages:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. I have reverted your edit twice now. Please do not continue to repeat this edit without discussing it on the article's talk page. --Danorton 22:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this issue with me. Responding to your question of the meaning of an "unreferenced fact," the repeated edits you modified indicated an area of "400 acres". That claim is not referenced. It is not supported by any source of information. While you might not have introduced the underlying claim originally, edits to unreferenced claims are also unreferenced. While I would not normally object were you to provide independent evidence to support the claim, this particular claim happens to be false. I appreciate your efforts to help clean up this page, but please if you are going to modify unsupported claims, the most helpful edit would be to reference support of the claim and correct it if necessary. --Danorton 22:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I did not add '400 acres'. Lightmouse (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Danorton, as an uninvolved third party who happened to notice, I'm confused by your actions here. You revert Lightmouse's edit as unsourced (very strange, since he was performing semi-automated conversion work), yet you are shuffling around names and such with, similarly, no references. How are the two any different? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

In this particular instance, the underlying factual claim is false, but your point is well taken, Huntster. I saw the change which also appeared "semi-automatic" to me and I simply reverted it. I intend to work towards providing more references to the material I am rearranging, but it was clear that the edit by Lightmouse was without regard to the underlying factual claim and no reference could possibly be forthcoming. The particular edit was regarding a precise numerical conversion, and a conversion on a false number can be even more misleading when converted. As I wrote above, I appreciate Lightmouse's efforts and in other contexts I can see how they would be more helpful. --Danorton 23:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

While I understand where you are coming from, this particular edit really should not have been reverted, since we are supposed to provide conversions when feasible. If you feel strongly enough about unsourced material, or about that figure in particular, simply remove it as being unsourced until such a time as something can replace it. Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether it is converted or not, it would be wrong, misleading or simply unsourced anyway. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Scale deletion

Why did you remove the link to the scale from Ludaš Lake? -- User:Docu

If anyone fails to understand what 3.28 means, they are in serious trouble. This has been raised at wp:mosnum and people seem to agree with me that they provide no benefit. Lightmouse (talk) 10:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Script assisted correction of units

Hello! I noticed that you changed the units in the Hesselberg article. I just wanted to draw your attention to the fact that–according to the Manual of Style–there should be a non-breaking-space between the number and the unit in order to prevent line-breaks at that position. Please keep that in mind for your further edits. Kind regards, — Tirk·fl    07:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The stated reason for the nbsp is to avoid line wrapping. But people now just add them blindly. It comes at a cost for users of small screens. People forget that line wrapping is a *good thing*. Three out of four of those nbsp are at the left of the screen. If anyone is reaching the end of the screen at that point, they are using a very small screen and need line wrapping.

However, it is not a big deal. I do not mind you putting them back. Lightmouse (talk) 10:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Measurement conversions

I was under the impression that the first instance of a unit of measurement should be wikilinked, but I guess you learn something new everday.

If an article on DYK interests me, I'll look and see what needs to done (usually its measurements conversions). So far I've unwittingly made 2 other editor's lives easier by putting in a {{convert}} as they were converting the measurements manually --​​​​D​​tbohrer​​​​ 14:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)