| Revision as of 19:15, 4 March 2011 editKaldari (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers68,434 edits Sorry :)← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:20, 4 March 2011 edit undoKaldari (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers68,434 edits General note: Nonconstructive editing on Repo Man. (TW)Next edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| Hey Jorm, re: , thanks for the information. I find this very interesting, so instead of filling up the article talk page, I thought I'd come by here. I'm just turning this over in my head and have several questions. What is going to be done with the information received from this tool? Is there a list somewhere that shows all the articles that are using the tool, with their current ratings? I can see several possibilities with this. If this were rolled out throughout Misplaced Pages, we could have a list of "highest rated articles". Sort of like a ] from the Reader's point of view. I'm not sure if you are familiar with Featured Articles, but the process in it's current form relies on what editors think of the writing, following all the Manual of Styles and quality of sources and such. There are a lot of hoops to jump through to get an article featured and perhaps what our '''editors''' think makes "Misplaced Pages's best articles" is completely different than what our '''readers''' believe makes the best articles. What are your views on this? ] (]) 14:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC) | Hey Jorm, re: , thanks for the information. I find this very interesting, so instead of filling up the article talk page, I thought I'd come by here. I'm just turning this over in my head and have several questions. What is going to be done with the information received from this tool? Is there a list somewhere that shows all the articles that are using the tool, with their current ratings? I can see several possibilities with this. If this were rolled out throughout Misplaced Pages, we could have a list of "highest rated articles". Sort of like a ] from the Reader's point of view. I'm not sure if you are familiar with Featured Articles, but the process in it's current form relies on what editors think of the writing, following all the Manual of Styles and quality of sources and such. There are a lot of hoops to jump through to get an article featured and perhaps what our '''editors''' think makes "Misplaced Pages's best articles" is completely different than what our '''readers''' believe makes the best articles. What are your views on this? ] (]) 14:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :I have moved this discussion over to my Foundation account's talk page, so that it's more official and all. --] (]) 20:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC) | :I have moved this discussion over to my Foundation account's talk page, so that it's more official and all. --] (]) 20:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == March 2011 == | |||
| ] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, at least one of ], such as the one you made to ], did not appear to be constructive and has been ] or removed. Please use ] for any test edits you would like to make, and read the ] to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --> ] (]) 19:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:20, 4 March 2011
Sorry Jorm
I had to edit your user page. Stop being a modest bum and at least include a line about your creation in your User Page. I mean, it's something that deserves recognition! Infested-jerk 23:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Re: Nexus War
Hmm... If the other appearance wasn't noteworthy, than this one certainly won't be. Unless Nexus War somehow gets a full article in a gaming magazine somewhere in the next two weeks, I don't think the article can be saved at all. I may just have to save the current content and re-install it when the game receives more coverage. -- Kirby1024 15:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- As with other entries that are on the cusp of satisying the criteria what I'd recommend is start the entry in your sandbox and we can all offer advice and scare up some other sources. You can also ask some of the AfD voters to look it over and see if they have any input so if they are happy then you already have some consensus before making it live which means it should avoid deletion. I do think there was some misunderstanding about the mention of the article in the computer magazine and I don't see a big problem if someone were to scan it in and throw it up on Photobucket for people to check (it still fits under fair use) or just scan in a couple of the most relevant ones. I think this should mean it'll be in a solid form when all the sources are in place. (Emperor 12:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC))
- I have been avoiding working on the page due to a conflict of interest. However, Kirby1024 has been managing the page, afaik.--Jorm 18:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tip. Just a note to say the entry has been recreated again. (Emperor 03:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC))
- I have been avoiding working on the page due to a conflict of interest. However, Kirby1024 has been managing the page, afaik.--Jorm 18:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
copyright
The basic information is at WP:LOGOS. Most people are unwilling to license the use of their logo under GFDL, although I am not sure of the exact interaction with trademark law. The use therefore must qualify as Fair Use by our standards, which requires the formulas given at that page to be followed exactly (and the use of a low resolution image). You cannot give permission for use in Misplaced Pages alone--it's meaningless, because our content is as a whole licensed under GFDL and anyone can copy it. If this isn't enough information, the best way to deal with difficulties is to simply go to the talk page for WP:Copyright and ask. All the experts and would-be experts hang out there. DGG (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Article Feedback
Hey Jorm, re: this, thanks for the information. I find this very interesting, so instead of filling up the article talk page, I thought I'd come by here. I'm just turning this over in my head and have several questions. What is going to be done with the information received from this tool? Is there a list somewhere that shows all the articles that are using the tool, with their current ratings? I can see several possibilities with this. If this were rolled out throughout Misplaced Pages, we could have a list of "highest rated articles". Sort of like a Featured Article from the Reader's point of view. I'm not sure if you are familiar with Featured Articles, but the process in it's current form relies on what editors think of the writing, following all the Manual of Styles and quality of sources and such. There are a lot of hoops to jump through to get an article featured and perhaps what our editors think makes "Misplaced Pages's best articles" is completely different than what our readers believe makes the best articles. What are your views on this? Tex (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have moved this discussion over to my Foundation account's talk page, so that it's more official and all. --Jorm (WMF) (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
March 2011
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Repo Man, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Kaldari (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)