Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:36, 8 February 2007

• Archive 1 (2005)

• Archive 2 (2006)

SVG??

Is it possible to upload SVG files, and have wiki automatically convert it on the fly to png? If so how do I do this, when I tried to upload an SVG it said it was not a recommended format, I did not see a way to force it to go. I noticed in the uploaded files area you have a couple that are .svg.png. Also, could you please resond on my talk page? Thanks. --Green-Dragon 06:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know. Bubba73 (talk), 03:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Vote

For the record I changed my vote to move to project namespace to save the 'list'. Please reconsider your vote. Thanks. --QuackGuru 21:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You voted to keep the "list of articles related to quackery" but we do not have enough votes. So your vote won't count towards anything. Now, our only option is to vote for move to project namespace as a development project. Thanks. --QuackGuru 23:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Kramnik played weakly?

I just wanted to add, that the result of the match can not be considered as being an overwhelming victory for the chess engine. In German media (I don't have any usable citation) there were remarks, that Kramnik didn't play with the concentration and the commitment like he used to do it in his championship match againt Topalow. Commenting every single move is not the intention of this article, but I think, that a blunder like this is a good example for my doubts, that he took that all really seriously. Remove it, if you think this shouldn't be mentioned. Bye... Strafrechtler 14:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Space nit-pick, Roswell

I dunno about the nit-pick charge - the first four-day flight was the first flight to be up for four days, which the flight in question did not manage. This is even more true for the first two-week flight, where G7 was listed even though S9 was the first flight to be in space for two weeks. I mean, for a page which such a huge debate over what "rendezvous" means, I am rather amazed that there seems to be no problem with calling a flight which lasted 13 days and 18 hours the "first" two week flight when clearly it was not.

Besides, in this place we should be "nit-picky". IMHO.Canada Jack 00:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Bubba, just want to say that I hope your nose isn't a bit out of joint over this space stuff. I did a quick peek of your profile and it seems we are on the same page on a lot of stuff - especially in terms of scientific skeptism.

As for Roswell, I have been rather surprised to essentially been given free reign to redo the entire piece! I started to do it, section by section, and then a crew from the paranormal group at wiki came in and did a restructure, wikified it etc. But they largely embraced my approach and an attempt by Dr Fil to put a pile of "unbalanced" notes on the page was quickly shot down. He is still around, but I think he knows he won't win here anymore. He's added a lot of crap to a subsidiary page, Roswell UFO Witnesse Accounts, and we've had lenghty debates there. But as it currently stands, the net effect of all his "unbalanced" tags on a page which is near-totally pro-ufo in the alien accounts (which is STILL not good enough for him) leaves the impression with the uninitiated that the "lack of balance" probably resides in the near-total pro-ufo credulity on the page.

For the first time, control of the Roswell UFO page is in the hand of skeptics like myself who permit a balanced debate. Most didn't think it was possible, but I think we've managed it. Canada Jack 01:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your gracious response. I didn't intend to pick a fight here, and it seems some felt I had. I can come off that way. As for Roswell and Dr Fil, I've known him from Space.com days and we had a number of titanic debates there. He and a guy named Skyeagle (I am pretty sure they are not the same) would get into these debates where they would concede NOTHING. It was ludicrous. Once, I made the point that Roswell was forgotten until 1978 and Friedman, then he (Sky) pulled out some quotes from a 1950 Time article which seemed to say otherwise. Well, once I actually got the article from the library I saw that it clearly had NOTHING to do with Roswell, he refused to concede he had misled us. SOme of these guys are clearly... obsessed. I asked Timothy Printy to look at it and he said he was pleased with what we had done, and I am curious as to what if anything you might feel needs clarification, to be included, etc. Cheers. Canada Jack 03:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Bubba73! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. froth 03:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Title Change

Greetings. The article list of our interest has been moved to a new wikiproject page. The new title is called the >>> List of articles related to scientific skepiticism. If you have any suggestions for improvement just let me know. The movement forward will be focusing, direction, and quality info. Sincerely, --QuackGuru 03:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

re: Your AfD on Fischer's endgame

From your post, it seems you are now convinced the endgame is indeed valid. You can request an end to the AfD by using the overstrike annotation on your opening remarks of the debate requesting the deletion. Then, you could insert a comment immediately underneath the overstruck remarks and explain why and perhaps make a recommendation (merge seems the best but that should be your determination. Thanks for your diligence in researching this further and obtaining a translation. Most AfD nominators would not do what you did. Cheers, Ronbo76 15:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. The superiority of the R+B over R+N is discussed in Capablanca's 1921 book Chess Fundamentals, the chapter "advanced endgame strategy". I have not been able to find any reference to it called "Fischer's endgame" in English. Even Kasparov's book on Fischer (which he originally wrote in Russian) discusses the position with Taimanov, but does not call it "Fischer's endgame". I think that he would probably mention that if it was a common term. I have no personal stake in this, but other reasons I think it should be deleted are because it is only a stub and the notability is questionable. WP:NOTE says that something should have two independent sources to be notable, but this has only that one, and some editors are questioning its accuracy. For now, I'll let the AfD continue. Bubba73 (talk), 15:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

added a link to his article "Fischer teaches the endgame" --YoavD 05:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC) "Kamsky's woes continued, as he was outplayed positionally by Ivanchuk in a Kan Sicilian. The latter is on record as having named Fischer as his chess hero, and today he turned his pressure into the "Fischer endgame" of rooks and bishop v rooks and knight. (Those of you to whom this terminology is unfamiliar are strongly recommended to buy a copy of Mihai Marin's wonderful book Learn from the Legends, after which all will become clear). Kamsky showed his usual tenacious defence, but with the more passive pieces and several pawn weaknesses, he never looked likely to hold the ending, and went down to defeat in 54 moves. " --YoavD 05:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fischer%27s_endgame" (just in case you will not see it) --YoavD 05:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Whered u get ur name from

where'd u get ur name? RealG187 17:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Realg187

The user that asked you where you got your name is basically a vandal: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Realg187]. Wahkeenah 00:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The new and different article

The new and improved list of articles is well referenced now. It has undergone a "massive remodeling." It will withstand any attempts at deletion, period. Thanks for your suggestions anyways. Your friend. --QuackGuru 23:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a famous person and there is an article on me here at Misplaced Pages. I have extensive knowledge about certain subjects. The article will be nominated for deletion and then as contributors we can voice are votes. Nothing more. We have a shared belief for the better world. --QuackGuru 01:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Apollo

Thank you for once again saying it better than I can. We seem to get a "Carfiend" popping up every few months, thinking he's the first one to raise this so-called issue. And this is just the moon landing "hoax" page, which is a fringe issue. I don't even want to think about weighing in on the Evolution page. Wahkeenah 16:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we have a clear consensus on that page. If my count is right, the IP address user has been reverted five times by three different editors. Bubba73 (talk), 16:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

And you laid out a pretty convincing case that the burden of proof is on the accusers. Meanwhile, the section in the article reads a little less like an editorial, so maybe some improvement will have come from this debate. Wahkeenah 16:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, Bubba. I'm not aware of this issue beyond the general awareness that a lot of the TV/computer data is in danger of becoming irretrievable because of changing technology. I work at CBC here in Canada, a large television network, and I am pretty sure a lot of the video technology from 1969 or thereabouts would not be retrievable. I had an audio reel-to-reel tape recorded at a slow speed and I couldn't find a machine to play it on! We have one in an audio suite, but it used soley to hear audio mixes through its speakers, I don't thinkn I've ever seen an actual tape threaded on it.

That being said, this sounds to me to be one of the stretches that those who insist "conspiracy" are making in painting what I would call a classic "dead-tech" issue as something sinister. I mean, the plans for the Apollo rockets are gone - NASA would literally have to go from scratch if they went back to the moon! I see nothing sinister here. Sure, bureacracies screw up, don't save what they should in terms of old plans, tapes become outmoded etc before being transferred to new formats...

Beyond that, I lack the expertise to assess these claims, I tend to demand that a high level of evidence be presented before some of these allegations are to be taken seriously and the onus is on the ones making the claims to provide it. Canada Jack 22:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Vibraimage

G'day. I notice that you are interested in some of the articles dealing with ultrasound and the electro-magnetic spectrum. I wonder if you could have a look at Vibraimage and tell me if you think it is a hoax or some pseudoscientific gadget. It achieves less than 300 Google hits and I'm inclined to AfD it but I'd like a few more opinions first. Thanks Maustrauser 07:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the article but I'm not knowledgeable enough about it to say, sorry. Bubba73 (talk), 16:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I wonder...

User Gravitor came back after being off since September. Today we have a few entries for Carfiend... his first since September. Things that make you go "Hmmm..." Wahkeenah 01:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that too. Bubba73 (talk), 02:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have asked an admin whether he can see if they are the same user. Their rhetoric is similar, and although Gravitor's renewed commentary started out moderately, he is falling back into the same pattern as last summer, though so far coming up short of Carfiend's over-the-top behavior, as with last summer, as I recall (I don't quite have the stomach for re-reading it). Wahkeenah 02:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I could announce it on the page, but I have more recently taken the course of turning these kinds of issues over to admins, as slugging it out with the users directly plays into their hands. Wahkeenah 02:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)