Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:27, 3 March 2009

Albe Back

The information that was posted on Albe Back's wikipedia was done for our client Albe by moonsix communications inc. We posted the copyright for the website it was originally posted on, we own the copyright so there should be no problems with copyright infringement.

copyright ok for artcile "Roger B. Baron", please re-establish

I am the author of http://regor.meta-x.org/Baron/index_en.html , text from which the wikipedia article I submitted, "Roger B. Baron", was widely inspired from. And I am willing to permit it re-use under the GFDL.

You can verify authenticity by matching the email of my wikipedia account (Montmartrebear) with the author's email on http://regor.meta-x.org/Baron/index_en.html : regor <at> meta-x <dot> org

Therefore, I kindly ask you to re-establish this article.

1944 D-Day: Operation Overlord

I actually got that info from www.1944d-day.com and I did reference it. If there's anything more I shoul do, please let me know. Legend6 (talk)Legend6

Conomination?

Hi Coren, the other day I made the mistake of restoring an image before I really checked out how easy it would be to decipher. Translated captions are becoming standard at featured picture candidates these days, so this would stall without help from a native speaker. The handwriting is a bit hard for me to make out here. Got assistance from an anglophone Canadian, who agreed this is a toughie. Partial translation is already done. I'd conominate and share featured credit in return for the assistance. Interested? Durova 03:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. It's slightly older french but I can parse all of it. Give me a few minutes to transcribe first then translate. — Coren  04:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's what we have so far. Durova 04:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Guessed French Text (snipped)

I'll do you one better on that part:

Nota. L'hirondellier devant être facilement démontable, toutes les pièces de charpente au lieu d'être assemblées seront moisées. La partie hachurée de la coupe sera pleine. La vitrerie sera comprise dans toute la partie formant l'hirondellier proprement dit (2.80) et la couverture du dit où n'est que la partie formant lanterneau. Un tambour de 0m30 environ de profondeur sera menagé dans la partie indiquée au plan. Avec 2 portes de 0m60 environ formée de trillages en fil de fer et d'un chassis en fer.

Which translates to:

Note. Because the aviary requires easy dismantling, all carpentry pieces must be braced rather than assembled . The hatched parts on the cross-section are to be in one piece. Glass windows will be inserted in the component forming the aviary proper (2.80), and the roof thereof, only where the lantern-shaped part is. A ring with a height of approximately 0m30 will be placed at the location indicated on the schematic. Includes two doors of approximately 0m60 made of iron wire mesh and an iron frame.

Don't hold me to this just yet, I haven't given up on the harder to read spot where writing overlaps on itself. — Coren  05:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm still unsure what the overwritten part says; and I doubt I'll be able to parse it without a different image. The month name at the bottom is also hard to decipher. To me, the letters could possibly be "jhu", "jru" or even possibly 'fru' — I expect some abbreviation of juillet or juin. The year is incompatible with the republican calendar so the latter is not possible. — Coren  05:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The above is the best quality translation I can give you from this source image. If you have the original handy, I might have an easier time reading through the obscured part (sometimes, noise that is visually distracting still conveys information that can help reading). The month is visually clear, but completely incomprehensible to me. January, February, June and July are the only reasonable possibilities because of the initial descender, with the latter two most likely. — Coren  06:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and as a last note, the captions read (translated) from the top left, "ELÉVATION" (elevation), "COUPE" (section), "PLAN" (plan view) and "Echelle 0m02 p.m." (Scale 0.02m per meter). — Coren  06:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Haven't forgotten you. Reading up on the man who inspired this, a DYK was absolutely necessary. You'll laugh. Jean Desbouvrie. Durova 06:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Swallow aviary design waiting for your signature. :) Durova 00:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Signed. It is a pretty diagram for a silly idea. :-) I'm going to add a translation note to the image, though. — Coren  00:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Misha Quint Article

Hello: I have permission to use this information that are listed on these websites, as well as the images. How would I prove that? Would it be possible for me to list references for this material and keep it as is? I am new to Misplaced Pages. Sorry for the violation of policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llewcellist (talk • contribs) 23:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read the guide to requesting and formalizing permission to use copyrighted works on Misplaced Pages. Note that, in addition to copyright requirements, the article must still comply with notability guidelines, advertising prohibition and avoid conflicts of interest. — Coren  23:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm working on fixing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llewcellist (talk • contribs) 04:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey

If I apply to be an administrator do I manually post it to the Request for admin page

thanks --MyspaceMan12 (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as outlined in the instructions on the Requests for adminship page. However, I would recommend against applying so soon: the community generally expects an editor to have several months' experience and a few thousand edits before they apply, so that you have had a good opportunity to learn the ropes. — Coren  02:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, I need some help on this - "problem"

Hi, I copied my own article written by me and pasted it into wikipedia and now it tells me that that was a copywrite violation.

I did not violate anything, that was my own article written from my own experience.

Please, how can I remove or correct the thing, because now it doesn't even let me to log in.

This is not OK - the process of creating pages and articles should be easier.

Sincerely Anatoly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.148.87 (talk) 05:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read the guide to donating your own copyrighted material to Misplaced Pages. Note that, in addition to copyright requirements, the article must still comply with notability guidelines, advertising prohibition and avoid conflicts of interest. — Coren  17:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Question

Please see my question here. Mike R (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete request

I didn't understand something about a speedy delete request being declined in your past. I don't really need or want to know more, but your name came to mind as I posting my first speedy delete request for something I hadn't myself created.

The technical issues of speedy deletion do not interest me -- but I feel compelled to become more familiar with issues having to do with Misplaced Pages as a battlefield. It bothers me to see Misplaced Pages articles used as a tool for forwarding a specific "pro-" or "anti-" position having to do with nation states. I don't even know how to put it into words yet -- but I know when something is amiss, even when I don't understand why or how or whatever-it-is-which causes me to feel increasing levels of alarm.

Mongolians are offended by an article title -- Mongolia during Tang rule. The article was created by a Chinese vandal; and I'm bothered by the fact that I didn't realize that it was vandalism until I'd invested a significant amount of time checking meaningless citations. I even went to the library to look at a book which said the opposite of what was claimed. No element of the vandals work had any redeeming quality save for the topic itself -- and an entirely new article has been created at Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. The Mongolians want the title erased for reasons I don't have to understand. The participation in discussion threads has sufficiently garnered respect for a sensitivity I can't fathom.

You have expressed concern that a kind of pernicious nationalism is poisoning Misplaced Pages at a macro-level which needs to be addressed by Arbcom intervention. Much of that is beyond my ability to grasp, but I'm persuaded that I need to encouraging your efforts to deal with this issue.

My strategy involves reminding you of the consequences of an insidious problem which play out on a tiny scale like this one. It shouldn't matter that I'm not a Mongolian, but the fact is that it does in this context.

When you confront macro-level nationalism issues, please bear in mind that you are addressing an important issue with a host of unforeseen consequences. This investment of time and concern are well worth the inconvenience or annoyance you must deal with as well. --Tenmei (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this is an unavoidable consequence of Misplaced Pages's increased "respectability" and visibility. Ironically, the more accurate and reliable we become, the stronger the pressures to twist that reliability into supporting various points of view becomes — the effect of which you have witnessed firsthand. Because we are increasingly the first reference people look towards for an overview on mostly any topic, any group who feel they have a cause to represent will consider that making certain Misplaced Pages reflects "The Truth" is both a duty and an obligation. Nationalist and religious disputes tend to be the foremost amongst those because of the very high degree of fanaticism and zealotry those areas can generate — and the disputants are rarely tractable since all sides of the issue will perceive the others as vandals or worse since they are "obviously" trying to distort "The Truth".

Part of the reasons this problem is so difficult is that, fundamentally, everyone involved is convinced that they, and they alone, are trying to uphold neutrality. And administrator intervention is almost invariably viewed as biased (when not outright decried as being done by agents of the opposing side).

It's a hard problem, and there are no simple solutions in view. As the mandate progresses, I'll be attempting to make things more difficult for such point of view warriors— we cannot change them, but we can make the environment unattractive for such warring to take place. It will be a long haul fix because Misplaced Pages was founded on the principle that consensus will allow reaching neutrality; but that principle breaks down when extremist or zealous participants are involved (being unable or unwilling to compromise or see any deviation from their position as increasing bias and inaccuracy). — Coren  23:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I declare myself to be a zealot of the Church of WP:V. The sole tenant of my narrow-minded church involves dwelling on the first sentence on the page at WP:V:

"The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth-— that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

This nuanced sentence re-invigorates my reliance on the distinction between a fact (as specifically clarified by WP:V and a mere factoid ... which is a very slender reed, but there you have it. --Tenmei (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, would things be that simple!  :-) The problem is that most any point of view can be made verifiable with the "right" sources; and it's trivial to conflate a minority viewpoint into The Truth if you put your back to it. This is why there is also WP:NPOV and WP:NOR to balance things out (or try to). Remember that no matter how arcane, how biased your point of view you can always find some sources that back it up. Left unchecked, WP:V on its own would destroy Misplaced Pages just as well as allowing random rants. — Coren  02:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ignorance (band) vs Ignorance (folk punk band)

This was indeed a split, and I tried to indicate as much in the summary - apologies if I missed a keyword that would appease the bot. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you help me?

Would you, please remove my article together with my domain name in it? I wrote about it before - now I can't even log in.

Sincerely —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.148.87 (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ablekuma South

I removed the tag as there is no error. I copied some material from Ablekum Central to speed up page creation.--Natsubee (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oversight access

You've got it! :) Regards, Dorgan (talk) 11:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot False Positive

Reported Hanner as an infringement of - this site is scraping wikipedia content and copying us! Exxolon (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)