Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:18, 2 May 2005

Comments from others

Anyone who has something to say to me can put it below - but please leave your name and date - anonymous comments or ones with a simple IP address will probably be deleted.

Saw your revert on partial-birth abortion... I had skimmed the discussion before I made the changes. Looked through it more carefully just a moment ago and I don't see any comments on the external links with the exception of the "Refactor the Links" subheading, to which no one replied. Am I blind? If there actually was discussion on this, I'd be happy to join the discussion instead of just making changes. --MikeJ9919 20:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FYI

Common protocol is to have the homepage material on your User: page, and leave your UserTalk page *strictly* for comment threads; the latter one notifies you of changes when you log in. --Baylink 18:01, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks--JonGwynne 20:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thomas Penfield Jackson

Hi. I reverted your edits to the Thomas Penfield Jackson article. Here at Misplaced Pages, we strive for Neutral point of view. RickK 05:14, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. The new edits look good. RickK 20:58, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution RFC, William M. Connolley

I started an RFC regarding user William M. Connolley, located here: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley. If you are interested, please comment or sign as appropriate. — Cortonin | Talk 12:23, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Consensus Science

I think you had a good start on that page. I rearranged and reworded it a bunch to help out the NPOV a bit and give it a more wiki-article feel, and I added some sections giving examples. I think it's a concept that definitely deserves a wiki page. — Cortonin | Talk 09:17, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Digital artist

Hi Jon, I noticed on your user page that you are a digital artist but unsure of the policy for uploading your work.

In order to upload a file, you have to click an extra button that confirms licensing per the Misplaced Pages:Copyrights policy. If you are the copyright holder/creator, this means that you are licensing your work per the GNU_Free_Documentation_License (GFDL). After uploading you need to add this tag to the file page. If you don't add this tag, someone else might do it for you, since by virtue of clicking the button you've agreed to this.

You may also choose to license your work per another license. Just edit the image page, after uploading, and add the appropriate copyright tag.

Many people upload some personal images for their user pages; just remember, you need to add the appropriate license tag after uploading. Also, images may be deleted by the community for various reasons.

There are always request for art work and pictures, see Misplaced Pages:Image recreation requests and Misplaced Pages:Requested_pictures.

I hope this helps, Duk 10:39, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

P.S. You can also add you name to the Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians/Graphic Artists page after contributing work. Duk 10:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Greenhouse gas spelling

Hi Jon, The Greenhouse gas page was standardized on British spelling and should stay that way, it doesn't matter if related pages are American spelling. Please see Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style#Usage_and_spelling. I know you are new here and working hard to improve articles, please don't add unnecessary disputes to already controversial pages. Thanks, Duk 20:29, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

P.S. see additional comments on the talk page. Duk 20:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jon, I owe you an apology. Cortonin pointed out that when the article's spelling was standardized it should have been to Americana spelling, not British. This has been fixed. Please note though, pages shouldn't be standardized to a particular spelling to match similar pages, they should be standardized to the language they started in, or to whatever spelling they are mostly in. Again, my apologies. Duk 21:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No worries. Still, I have a question. Why shouldn't one page which references another be made to be consistent with the one it references? It seems to me that this promotes confusion and inconsistency. Surely a page which discussed water vapor and references the article should match the usage of the page it referenced. Shouldn't it? p.s. Thanks for the info on pics! --JonGwynne 20:09, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I can't answer that question, I'm not sure of the history of this rule. Something that I have noticed, however, is that mixed spelling in an article sticks out like a sore thumb. But going from an article with one spelling, to an article with another spelling doesn't seem to stick out much (at least for me). Duk 21:08, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Please read up on the Three Revert Rule, which you have broken on Carbon dioxide. In doing so you run the risk of being blocked. Don't just edit war, use the talk page, that's what it's there for. See also: Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. --fvw* 00:44, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

I am familiar with the policy, thank you. The majority of my changes to the CO2 page were not reverts but edits. I don't believe there is a rule which discourages more than three edits in a day, is there?--JonGwynne 12:22, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the Three revert rule on Greenhouse gas. When you return, please work out differences on the Talk: page. Jayjg 00:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You have been blocked again for violating the 3RR on Medieval Warm Period. Please use the talk page to disscuss changes in futureGeni 19:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation on Global warming you know the score by nowGeni 02:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, at least this blockage was legitimate. The rest were not.--JonGwynne 17:08, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne

(William M. Connolley 00:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I have filed Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne against you. This is the notification that I am required to provide.

Ah, more petulant whining from the master...--JonGwynne 17:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening

The case against you has been accepted. Please bring evidence to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne/Evidence. Thank you. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:33, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

I've written in your support. WMC is clearly out of line and POV pushing, and uses mobocracy and abuses the judicial process. If anyone is a clear reason to dump the 3rr, then he is it. I support banning him for one year. Stirling Newberry 14:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Having done yet more research, I offer the following:

1. I am not a global warming sceptic, in the least, in fact, I first encounted theories of global warming in the early 1980's, and the climate work of Hermann von Schelling.
2. You should have escalated sooner. It can often seem as if people are alone and outnumbered when making edits against the consensus, RFCs are an important procedure when discussion has broken down.
3. While WMC's behavior is clearly beyond the pale, many of your accusations have not helped your case. You would do best to let others make strong assertions.
4. When involved in an edit war, or edit wars, it is generally best to research more carefully and first work to make sure the page is headed towards NPOV with each of your edits.
5. It is important to be particularly meticulous when involved in an edit war to make sure that summaries are clear to others, because it is the edit summaries which other members of the community go on in order to make edits to the page.
6. It is important to separate the POV information you would like to include from NPOV problems.
7. It is important to discuss with others who do not share your POV on presentation - NPOV is an important idea, beyond wikipedia.

Hence, I feel that the arbcom proceding against you is inappropriate because WMC is at least as guilty, and his repeated appeals to mobocracy (many of them from people who are edit warring on his side) are both inappropriate and a violation of the standards we agree to. However, I would ask that you look at your own response, not in the context of the proceding, but in the context of "best practice", and privately evaluate it.

The arbcom members I have dealt with are extremely reasonable people, and it is best to approach them from the point of view not of being on the other side, but from the context of people who are doing service to the wiki-community in resolving difficult disputes. Bear this in mind as you argue your case, bear in mind also that you have made what many people would describe as questionable moves in presentation of material.

Just because I strongly object to WMC's abuse of the process does not mean I endorse your approach to dealing with him. And I specifically do not endorse many of the statements you have made in the course of the edit wars, but, instead, feel that they are beyond the bounds of good procedure. And I urge you to edit in a more NPOV fashion, adding documentation of points of view which you do not agree with as a sign to others that you are editting in good faith, which is the essential building block of the wikiprocess.

We are not here to decide the issue of global warming, nor to endorse any particular version of it. We are here to document, and to document in accordance with available POVs to inform readers who are seeking context and enrichment which is often lacking in materials that are written and posted on the web from particular POVs. This is, in fact, liberating, once it is grasped. Please think on these matters, I strongly urge you to realize that you need supporters, and that therefore you should focus on that which is solid and broadly acceptable, and show good judgement in which issues are issues of NPOV, and which ones represent your own POV.

Stirling Newberry 15:46, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee ruling

The Arbitration Committee has ruled on the case against you. You are hereby placed on standard personal attack parole for three months, until 6 June 2005; if you make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then you shall be temporarily banned for a short time of up to one week. You are also limited to one revert per 24 hour period on articles related to global warming; violations shall be interpreted as violations of the three revert rule. Please see the final decision for details. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 16:02, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

I have considered this decision and I find it without any credibility or balance. Nothing I was accused of doing was in any way different than the actions of several other individuals and yet I was the only one censured. The practice of selective prosecution by the "Arbitration Committee" clearly demonstrates their lack of objectivity or basic competence and while I will abide by the decision because I have no choice, I consider it ridiculous and contemptable - the action of bullies. I expected better and hold all of you in the contempt your actions have brought on you.

Image:Jaguar C-type.jpg

Greetings! Thanks for uploading Image:Jaguar C-type.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the image and I'll tag it for you. Thanks so much, – Quadell 20:32, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Image source

Thank you for uploading Image:Bricklin SV-1.jpg. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. Thank you. --Ellmist 05:23, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright

Image:UNFCC Logo.gif: I believe we assume (and in some countries the default status is) that everything is copyrighted unless shown otherwise. Try united nations copyright in Google. (SEWilco 18:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Even if that was the case, this would fall under "fair use" wouldn't it?

Probably does. Incidentally, I think the name should have one more "C" and use lowercase "L". (SEWilco 18:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Feel free to change it, I can't seem to do it--JonGwynne 18:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You'll have to upload it again, relink articles, then request speedy deletion. (SEWilco 21:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Evidence, not Talk

Evidence within your section, please. (SEWilco 16:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Three revert rule

You have been blocked for 24 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list.Geni 20:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blockage successfully appealed. Please be more careful in future. The complaint against me was invalid. In fact, if you look at the list, there are at least two other recent and invalid complaints. Perhaps those who make invalid complaints in an apparent effort to stifle correction of their extreme POV edits should themselves be punished - not that I expect this to happen, considering the bias/incompetence of some of the administrators here.--JonGwynne 06:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)