Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:54, 1 April 2005

Internet history

I replied to your request - not sure I have an easy answer. Noel 02:52, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Now that I think about it (and I have no idea why I didn't think of this before!) I definitely would recommend Katie Hafner's book. It's written for the ordinary reader, but has all the technical details rigs. Of course, it's also book-length! Noel (talk) 15:08, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Noel, thanks for your concern over this! I wish there was some way I could help here. There just has to be a way to communicate the BASIC technical know-how to the wider world; that is what Misplaced Pages is for. -Fishal

Sure; if ordinary people can't understand it, we have work to do, is my feeling. I have an idea: I translated the sentence you were gagging on (on Talk: History of the Internet). If you wander around that set of pages, and post similar questions on Talk: pages, I can answer them. In return, once you have asked enough questions to really understand things, if you would then help future readers by inserting appropriate explanations, etc that would really make it worthwhile.

PS: Misplaced Pages style is that people generally reply on the User_Talk: page of the person who wrote a message to them (that way, someone doesn't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person whom they are having a "conversation" with), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (although I do monitor the article talk pages for most articles, so replying there for non-personal inquiries works fine. Noel (talk) 18:07, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

PPS: I'd be interested to see what you think of Packet and Internet Protocol, where I have already done a little work to make them a little more intelligible to non-technical people. (Not that they are perfect, by any means, but they do include paragraphs intended to be intelligible to all and sundry.) Most of the others, e.g. Transmission Control Protocol are pretty horrendous... Noel (talk) 18:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about "soon", but we are working on it! Noel (talk) 23:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Internet pages improval

Hi, I just re-wrote the intro section of Transmission Control Protocol to be hopefully more comprehensible to non-geeks. (The old version was a perfect example of the kind of "assumes the reader already understands all this stuff" problem you pointed out.) I'd be interested in any feedback you had about whether the new version is more accessible. Noel (talk) 14:42, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Attention to Time

Hi, I notice you've flagged up the time article as needing attention, but you didn't give any more details. I came to it from the (apparently) fairly inactive Time project page. I am interested in working on calendar dates and historical time but could also consider more general issues, so maybe I'll give Time a look over too. If you've got any specific things you think need to be covered I'll try to include them, or work together. --FrankP 11:50, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See reply on CTSWyneken to your LCMS points

--CTSWyneken 02:51, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My family owns a cabin on Lake Michigan near Leland. Some time ago, we started exploring some of the local oddities. Gravity Hill in Arcadia was among them. It's good to have someone else helping with the Michigan articles. I've been thinking of doing a new article for the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore page--it's kind of lacking. Have you been there?

Also, I'm not too familiar with receiving and sending messages on Misplaced Pages. Do I have to make a new message on your User talk page to reply to you, or can I simply add a reply on my own User talk page? Thanks! Gsgeorge 22:14, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

DYK update

On ], Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Example, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Error: Invalid time.&end=Error: Invalid time.&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Example Example), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

] 04:15, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

LCMS article

Hey Fishal. I saw your work on the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod page, and I appreciated your attention to re-writing POV in objective terms. I just added a section called "Consensus and Division" under the LCMS history. I replaced the section previously titled "Battle for Biblical inerrancy" (which had no text under it), because it seemed that some of the disputes were over precisely this matter. However, I wondered if you could take a look at my addition. I'm not an LCMS expert, and although I did my best and did a lot of internet research, I thought it would be useful if some of the more objective writers from the LCMS page would vet my addition. Thanks! Ropcat

> I really liked the changes you made-- I never understood any of those political connivings until now, in fact. > They report the controversies in a concise manner so that even a relative outsider (like me) can understand what > went on. And it's balanced and neutral too. I'm not sure how some people would take the equating of "confessional" > and "conservative." Conservative Lutherans call themselves Confessionals, but I'm not sure if anyone else does. > Heck, the first sentence in the LCMS article says "The Missouri Synod is a confessional Lutheran church body." I'm > not sure what to do about that because I'm not quite sure what it means exactly. But regardless, good work. > Fishal 15:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Fishal! Yeah, I agree, the terms for the two "camps" are tricky, and probably need to be tweaked. For one thing, although the more conservative wing calls the more moderate wing "liberals," I think this label would be confusing for Misplaced Pages readers. The reason is that, while the conservatives may find them liberal, they aren't in any way "liberal" in the sense that we'd use the word in broader American cultural, political, and religious life -- in fact, most in the LCMS "liberal" wing would be quite conservative in the broader context. And then there's the problem you point out with the name for the more conservative wing, which styles itself (alone) as "confessionals." This clashes with the description of the entire Synod as "confessional," AND it might be a term that the more moderate/liberal wing would disgree with. If you think of better terms, please don't hesitate to add them. Ropcat 20:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) P.S. You might be interested in the long-ish article I wrote on Seminex, although it still needs some work, esp the "Legacy" section, and perhaps on the theological issues in question (on which I'm no expert). I see you worked on that one before I got there.

Hey Fishal. Wondered if you might have a chance to look at revisions today by user 68.114.167.126 to the Missouri Synod article and to the one on LCMS president Gerald B. Kieschnick. I think there are some serious NPOV problems, but I wanted to get a second opinion. I've tagged the Kieschnick article as NPOV in question, and detailed my concerns on the Talk Page, but I haven't done anything with the LCMS page. Hope you're doing well. Ropcat 08:51, 12 March 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging

Please tag Image:Acme2.jpg using Misplaced Pages:Image_copyright_tags as a reference. For now, it is marked as {{unverified}} Thanks. Superm401 07:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate you moving ahead on this. However, it really doesn't seem like a screenshot, in that you show no context from the screen. It looks more like a direct copy of the image. Even if it is technically a screenshot, I don't think it's fair use, although it may depend where it's from. Could you tell me that, please? I'm worried that it may detract from value, or be too substantial, both of which violate fair use. I'd like to discuss this briefly, but thanks for doing what you did already. Superm401 02:17, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Persia page

Hi Fishal,

I had to step in and make some changes to your page to hopefully put an end to some dumb accusations people are making. The page has been more about "Persian history". So I had to add some stuff to it to make it more about "Persia".

I really havent changed the page though. I only added to it, and shuffled around some parts. I used color to better distinguish topics and sections from one another. I had to be brief in many sections though, since we are approaching the 32k limit for a page pretty fast.--Zereshk 01:01, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be best to have the stuff on both those pages. Sorry about the confusion. Good job on the move.--Zereshk 00:26, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image:Whirling log.jpg

Hi. Last November, you contributed this article to Misplaced Pages. You seem to suggest that it is public domain "being sold by a dealer; no copyright", so if you could confirm that, I would be very grateful. If you could just tell me where you got it (did you take it yourself?) then I can tag it appropriately. Thank you very much, Smoddy (_tek) 21:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)