Misplaced Pages

User talk:Pjoef: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:49, 18 March 2011 editYclept:Berr (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,122 editsm →Music venue page← Previous edit Revision as of 04:47, 21 March 2011 edit undoAquib American Muslim (talk | contribs)2,681 edits →Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup has been appealed to ArbCom: new sectionNext edit →
Line 540: Line 540:


Sorry for spamming you with replies, on the Islamic Math article. :-) No need to ping me back ] (]) 14:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Sorry for spamming you with replies, on the Islamic Math article. :-) No need to ping me back ] (]) 14:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

== Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup has been appealed to ArbCom ==

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at ] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
* ];
* ].

Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice --> Pjoef, since your incident comes up in the discussion, I have named you - as a courtesy, thanks -] (]) 04:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:47, 21 March 2011


WE ARE ALL DIU!


[REDACTED]
v • e
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
v • e
Unified login: pjoef is the unique login of this user for all public Wikimedia projects.
Home Page About me ~ lol Current favourites subjects Do You Like Scratchin'? Motto of the day, great quotations, and other stuff Stuff nice people gave to me Running Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday. What have I done? I talk to the wind. The Wind does not hear
User About Favourites Sandbox Quotes Awards Contributions Talk
User talk:Pjoef – Wednesday, 22 January 2025
[REDACTED]
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
How to contact me from Misplaced Pages's sister projects and/or in other languages.

Click "" on the row corresponding to your language.

      / English       

Please, leave me a note here on my talk page on the English Misplaced Pages with the interwiki link to the Talk page where you want to receive my reply.

Prefixes for each specific sister project:
      Wiktionary                                          
Linking from English Misplaced Pages to English Wiktionary:
  • User talk:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Article talk:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikinews                                            
Linking from English Misplaced Pages to English Wikinews:
  • User talk:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Article talk:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikibooks                                           
Linking from English Misplaced Pages to English Wikibooks:
  • User talk:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Article talk:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikiquote                                            
Linking from English Misplaced Pages to English Wikiquote:
  • User talk:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Article talk:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikisource                                         
Linking from English Misplaced Pages to English Wikisource:
  • User talk:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Article talk:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikispecies                                        
Linking from English Misplaced Pages to English Wikispecies:
  • User talk:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Article talk:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikiversity                                          
Linking from English Misplaced Pages to English Wikiversity:
  • User talk:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Article talk:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikimedia Foundation                      
Linking from English Misplaced Pages to English Wikimedia Foundation:
  • User talk:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Article talk:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikimedia Commons                       
Linking from English Misplaced Pages to English Wikimedia Commons:
  • User talk:
    ]
  • Article talk:
    ]
      Wikimedia Meta-Wiki                       
Linking from English Misplaced Pages to English Wikimedia Meta-Wiki:
  • User talk:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Article talk:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikimedia Incubator                        
Linking from English Misplaced Pages to English Wikimedia Incubator:
  • User talk:
    ]
  • Article talk:
    ]
      Wikimedia Strategic Planning       
Linking from English Misplaced Pages to English Wikimedia Strategic Planning:
  • User talk:
    ]
  • Article talk:
    ]
      MediaWiki                                           
Linking from English Misplaced Pages to English MediaWiki:
  • User talk:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Article talk:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      MediaZilla / Bugzilla                          
Linking from English Misplaced Pages to English MediaZilla / Bugzilla:
  • User talk:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Article talk:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Testwiki                                               
Linking from English Misplaced Pages to English Testwiki:
  • User talk:
    ]
  • Article talk:
    ]
       Español              

Dejame una nota aquí en mi página de discusión en la Misplaced Pages en ingles con el enlace interlingüístico a la página de discusión donde desea recibir la respuesta.

Consulte la tabla a continuación para ver algunos ejemplos de enlaces interlingüístico o a otros wikis:
      Misplaced Pages                                             
Como enlace la Misplaced Pages en español en la Misplaced Pages en inglés:
  • Usuario Discusión:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Artículo Discusión:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikcionario                                         
Como enlace el Wikcionario en español en la Misplaced Pages en inglés:
  • Usuario Discusión:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Artículo Discusión:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      WikiNoticias                                        
Como enlace WikiNoticias en español en la Misplaced Pages en inglés:
  • Usuario Discusión:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Artículo Discusión:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikilibros                                             
Como enlace Wikilibros en español en la Misplaced Pages en inglés:
  • Usuario Discusión:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Artículo Discusión:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikiquote                                             
Como enlace Wikiquote en español en la Misplaced Pages en inglés:Linking from English Misplaced Pages to English Wikiquote:
  • Usuario Discusión:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Artículo Discusión:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikisource                                          
Como enlace Wikisource en español en la Misplaced Pages en inglés:
  • Usuario Discusión:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Artículo Discusión:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikispecies                                        
Como enlace Wikispecies en la Misplaced Pages en inglés:
  • Usuario Discusión:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Artículo Discusión:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikiversidad                                       
Como enlace la Wikiversidad en español en la Misplaced Pages en inglés:
  • Usuario Discusión:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Artículo Discusión:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikimedia Foundation                      
Como enlace la Wikimedia Foundation en la Misplaced Pages en inglés:
  • Usuario Discusión:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Artículo Discusión:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikimedia Commons                       
Como enlace Wikimedia Commons en la Misplaced Pages en inglés:
  • Usuario Discusión:
    ]
  • Artículo Discusión:
    ]
      Wikimedia Meta-Wiki                       
Como enlace Meta-Wiki en la Misplaced Pages en inglés:
  • Usuario Discusión:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Artículo Discusión:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikimedia Incubator                        
Como enlace la Incubadora de Wikimedia en la Misplaced Pages en inglés:Linking from English Misplaced Pages to English Wikimedia Incubator:
  • Usuario Discusión:
    ]
  • Artículo Discusión:
    ]
      Wikimedia Strategic Planning       
Como enlace wikimediaestratégico en la Misplaced Pages en inglés:
  • Usuario Discusión:
    ]
  • Artículo Discusión:
    ]
      MediaWiki                                           
Como enlace MediaWiki en la Misplaced Pages en inglés:
  • Usuario Discusión:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Artículo Discusión:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      MediaZilla / Bugzilla                          
Como enlace MediaZilla / Bugzilla en la Misplaced Pages en inglés:
  • Usuario Discusión:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Artículo Discusión:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Testwiki                                               
Como enlace Testwiki en la Misplaced Pages en inglés:
  • Usuario Discusión:
    ]
  • Artículo Discusión:
    ]
       Français             

Laissez-moi un message ici sur ma page de discussion sur la Wikipédia anglophone indiquant le lien interwiki vers la page de discussion où vous souhaitez recevoir la réponse à votre question.

Quelques exemples de différents types de lien vers les autres projets Wikimédia sont fournis dans le tableau ci-dessous:
      Wikipédia                                             
Comment créer un lien vers Wikipédia en français:
  • Discussion utilisateur:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Artícle Discussion:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wiktionnaire                                        
Comment créer un lien vers le Wiktionnaire en français:
  • Discussion utilisateur:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Artícle Discussion:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      WikiNews                                             
Comment créer un lien vers WikiNews francophone:
  • Discussion utilisateur:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Artícle Discussion:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikilivres                                             
Comment créer un lien vers Wikilivres en français:
  • Discussion utilisateur:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Artícle Discussion:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikiquote                                             
Comment créer un lien vers WikiQuote en français:
  • Discussion utilisateur:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Artícle Discussion:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikisource                                          
Comment créer un lien vers Wikisource en français:
  • Discussion utilisateur:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Artícle Discussion:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikispecies                                        
Comment créer un lien vers Wikispecies en français:
  • Discussion utilisateur:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Artícle Discussion:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikiversité                                          
Comment créer un lien vers Wikiversité en français:
  • Discussion utilisateur:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Artícle Discussion:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikimedia Foundation                      
Comment créer un lien vers la Wikimedia Foundation:
  • Discussion utilisateur:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Artícle Discussion:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikimedia Commons                       
Comment créer un lien vers Wikimedia Commons:
  • Discussion utilisateur:
    ]
  • Artícle Discussion:
    ]
      Wikimedia Meta-Wiki                       
Comment créer un lien Wikimedia Meta-Wiki:
  • Discussion utilisateur:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Artícle Discussion:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikimedia Incubator                        
Comment créer un lien vers Wikimedia Incubator:
  • Discussion utilisateur:
    ]
  • Artícle Discussion:
    ]
      Wikimedia Strategic Planning       
Comment créer un lien vers Wikimedia Strategic Planning:
  • Discussion utilisateur:
    ]
  • Artícle Discussion:
    ]
      MediaWiki                                           
Comment créer un lien vers MediaWiki:
  • Discussion utilisateur:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Artícle Discussion:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      MediaZilla / Bugzilla                          
Comment créer un lien vers MediaZilla / Bugzilla:
  • Discussion utilisateur:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Artícle Discussion:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Testwiki                                               
Comment créer un lien vers Testwiki:
  • Discussion utilisateur:
    ]
  • Artícle Discussion:
    ]
       Italiano               

Lasciatemi un messaggio qui sulla mia pagina di discussioni sulla Misplaced Pages in inglese indicando l'interwiki link alla pagina di discussione dove volete ricevere la mia risposta.

Alcuni esempi di link verso gli altri progetti di Wikimedia sono disponibili quì di seguito:
      Misplaced Pages                                             
Come creare un link verso la Misplaced Pages in italiano:
  • Discussioni utente:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Discussioni voce:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikizionario                                        
Come creare un link verso il Wikizionario in italiano:
  • Discussioni utente:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Discussioni voce:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      WikiNews                                             
Come creare un link verso WikiNews in italiano:
  • Discussioni utente:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Discussioni voce:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikibooks                                            
Come creare un link verso Wikibooks in italiano:
  • Discussioni utente:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Discussioni voce:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikiquote                                             
Come creare un link verso WikiQuote in italiano:
  • Discussioni utente:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Discussioni voce:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikisource                                          
Come creare un link verso Wikisource in italiano:
  • Discussioni utente:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Discussioni voce:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikispecies                                        
Come creare un link verso Wikispecies in italiano:
  • Discussioni utente:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Discussioni voce:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikiversità                                          
Come creare un link verso la Wikiversità in italiano:
  • Discussioni utente:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Discussioni voce:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikimedia Foundation                      
Come creare un link verso la Wikimedia Foundation:
  • Discussioni utente:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Discussioni voce:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikimedia Commons                       
Come creare un link verso Wikimedia Commons:
  • Discussioni utente:
    ]
  • Discussioni voce:
    ]
      Wikimedia Meta-Wiki                       
Comment créer un lien Wikimedia Meta-Wiki:
  • Discussioni utente:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Discussioni voce:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikimedia Incubator                        
Come creare un link verso Wikimedia Incubator:
  • Discussioni utente:
    ]
  • Discussioni voce:
    ]
      Wikimedia Strategic Planning       
Come creare un link verso Wikimedia Strategic Planning:
  • Discussioni utente:
    ]
  • Discussioni voce:
    ]
      MediaWiki                                           
Come creare un link verso MediaWiki:
  • Discussioni utente:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Discussioni voce:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      MediaZilla / Bugzilla                          
Come creare un link verso MediaZilla / Bugzilla:
  • Discussioni utente:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Discussioni voce:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Testwiki                                               
Come creare un link verso Testwiki:
  • Discussioni utente:
    ]
  • Discussioni voce:
    ]
      / Português 

Se desejar, você pode entrar em contato comigo aqui na minha página de discussão na Misplaced Pages em língua inglesa especificando a ligação interlinguística: m:Help:Interwiki linking (em inglês), Ligações interlinguísticas (em português), Ligações a projetos relacionados (Correlatos) (em português), para a página de discussão onde deseja receber a resposta.

Exemplos de ligações da Misplaced Pages em língua inglesa para diferentes tipos de projetos relacionados:
      Misplaced Pages                                             
Como ligar para a Misplaced Pages em português:
  • Utilizador Discussão:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Discussão Artigo:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikizionario                                        
Como ligar para ao Wikcionário em português:
  • Utilizador Discussão:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Discussão Artigo:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikinotícias                                        
Como ligar para a Wikinotícias em português:
  • Utilizador Discussão:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Discussão Artigo:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikilivros                                            
Como ligar para a Wikilivros em português:
  • Utilizador Discussão:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Discussão Artigo:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikiquote                                             
Como ligar para a WikiQuote em português:
  • Utilizador Discussão:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Discussão Artigo:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikisource                                          
Como ligar para a Wikisource em português:
  • Utilizador Discussão:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Discussão Artigo:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikispecies                                        
Como ligar para a Wikispecies em português:
  • Utilizador Discussão:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Discussão Artigo:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikiversidade                                     
Como ligar para a Wikiversidade em português:
  • Utilizador Discussão:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Discussão Artigo:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikimedia Foundation                      
Como ligar para a Wikimedia Foundation:
  • Utilizador Discussão:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Discussão Artigo:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikimedia Commons                       
Como ligar para a Wikimedia Commons:
  • Utilizador Discussão:
    ]
  • Discussão Artigo:
    ]
      Wikimedia Meta-Wiki                       
Comment créer un lien Wikimedia Meta-Wiki:
  • Utilizador Discussão:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Discussão Artigo:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Wikimedia Incubator                        
Como ligar para a Wikimedia Incubator:
  • Utilizador Discussão:
    ]
  • Discussão Artigo:
    ]
      Wikimedia Strategic Planning       
Como ligar para a Wikimedia Strategic Planning:
  • Utilizador Discussão:
    ]
  • Discussão Artigo:
    ]
      MediaWiki                                           
Como ligar para a MediaWiki:
  • Utilizador Discussão:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Discussão Artigo:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      MediaZilla / Bugzilla                          
Como ligar para a MediaZilla / Bugzilla:
  • Utilizador Discussão:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
  • Discussão Artigo:
    ]
    ———————OR———————
    ]
      Testwiki                                               
Como ligar para a Testwiki:
  • Utilizador Discussão:
    ]
  • Discussão Artigo:
    ]
I will reply or place a {{Talkback}} on your talk page unless you request otherwise.
This is Pjoef's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
This is Pjoef's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Welcome

Thanks for the welcome to WikiProject:The Clash! I'm looking forward to working on some of the tasks. I have already just now taken note of a few articles that should be listed with the project, so I'm going to tag them right now. Let me know if I'm making any mistakes! SteveStrummer (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Checked {{Talkback|SteveStrummer|Welcome!}} –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Checked {{Talkback|SteveStrummer|Welcome!}} –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey I just wanted to let you know that I am now using the Cite style exclusively! I am working on a lengthy article right now (not, alas, a WPClash article but soon, soon!) and I just cannot believe how much better everything is because of it! It's kind of like moving from a typewriter to a Mac :) Thank you so much for putting your helpful tips on my talk page! They were critical to me for making the changeover. SteveStrummer (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


Checked {{Talkback|SteveStrummer|Welcome!}} –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Checked {{Talkback|SteveStrummer|Welcome!}} –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Checked {{Talkback|SteveStrummer|Welcome!}} –pjoef (talk • contribs) 17:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

PPI Assessment Update

Thanks for contributing to WP:USPP, your assessments are a part of a deeper look at assessing article quality in Misplaced Pages. The quality and rationality behind the assessment scores by the Wikpedians on this project is really impressive, it is an insightful and knowledgeable group. There is some information about preliminary results of assessment data on the project assessment talk page, I hope you check it out and add your thoughts. There is also an additional article assessment request for you. This assessment set will wrap up the first experiment which analyzes the consistency of the quantitative metric and compares subject matter expert assessment to Wikipedian assessment.

The second experiment will start in November and you will be asked to assess articles and also provide feedback on the Article Feedback Tool. The results of that experiment will compare your idea of article quality to the ranking from the Article Feedback Tool and your input will help improve that tool. I hope you enjoy being a part of this research, I am pretty excited about the results so far, and am looking forward to continuing to work with you on assessment. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Checked –pjoef (talk • contribs) 06:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Pjoef, thank you for contributing to article assessment for WP:USPP. Your assessments are very appreciated. There will be weekly updates about the research for this project posted here, look for the first one tomorrow. The next assessment request will come in early November. There is a lot of expertise and discussion about article quality happening in the project, so stay tuned. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggested changes at MOTD

Hello fellow motto contributor. Discussions arer still open on Misplaced Pages talk:Motto of the day/Nominations#Suggested changes and still require further input especially on ideas 10-17. Please could you voice your opinion as this is going to be closed in early November. Please help out or even make any new idea suggestions. Simply south (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a last call. Any opinions should be suggested by and including November 5th. See Misplaced Pages talk:Motto of the day/Nominations/Archive 2#Suggested Changes Simply south (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Funny

I must say that when I read "... and (pay attention to the logical conjunction)..." I fell off my chair laughing! Hailypaige (talk) 05:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Many, many thanks for the exemplary work done on our page. Well done and best regards, Jullian. 86.26.236.123 (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure! I didn't know about ThermaHelm before. I hope it will help save many lives. Thank you for this innovative technology, and all the best for its future.

A couple of "annoying" things:
The article needs more information and to be expanded, otherwise, I fear that it will be deleted. If I understood correctly, ThermaHelm is both the name of the helmet (hey, what about designing a lighter version for heavy-duty works ?) and the name of the Ltd. company. I think that it needs a proper and good introduction (see: Misplaced Pages:Lead section) to summarize its most important aspects, then a section about the company and the company history, and a section with possibly one or more 3rd level subsections (code: ===3rd level subsection title===) about the helmet(s) and how it works (see: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (layout)).
Lastly, I want to remind you, but I'm sure you already know that Misplaced Pages is not a vehicle for propaganda, advertising, and showcasing (see: Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox or means of promotion). So, we can only publish balanced third-party verifiable materials written in an objective and unbiased style, and with a neutral point of view, of course (see: Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies) and Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest).

If you need help... just drop me a line, I'm here and ready to help (when it is possible). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

All good points. Do note that we are simply making the public aware of the technology and that we sell nothing through our website or anywhere else. Once we have the technology ready for consumer rider protection, we hope to. Would very much like for you to add to the article. Can email you more information...would that help? Hailypaige (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

See below –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

ThermaHelm progress

Hi there Joe, is it?

Thank you for your kind comments.

I understand completely your points about commercial promotion and agree completely that such activity is Totally inappropriate, wrong and want no part of promoting same on this uber-cool altruistic site. As a matter of fact, the owner of identySOL added a link to his site without using a registered account and I instructed him to remove it and he has done so.

ThermaHelm is the name of the technology (think Intel Inside) and also the company. However, ThermaHelm as a company will soon cease and Cool Technologies Limited (established) will be the issuer of licences to use the brain cooling patent for individual application as shown here on the World Intellectual Property Organization http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2009095690. Perhaps this link or information should be added? Any help or guidance would be most greatfully appreciated. As we are deep into development and having a soft launch at the NEC International Motorcycle Show from November 27 - December 5th, I am unable to pay the correct attention to learn all about Misplaced Pages, however, am honoured that you have chosen to create the page for it. Indeed, lives will be saved - rest assured.

Perhaps I should send you our Executive Summary. We intend to change the status quo of head protection for children by con vesting kids to full face head protective head gear and the sales of the adult helmets will subsidise the child helmets which will be offered for 75% less than the adult's models.

Good idea about construction hats. We have also been approached by a firefighter (and motorcycle) helmet company in Germany called Schuberth. F1, equestrian, bicycle and many other applications are all possible. Very exciting for us all. Feel free to come down to the University for a chat. I have some friends to are in the music business from Norman Cook to those who actively write lyrics for common names in the industry and this may be of help to your research.

My contact details are on the website so feel free to give me a call whenever a free moment presents itself (07779000900). Best, J. Hailypaige (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Those are great news! Children are our future!!! Very well done and thank you once again. I had the "enable email from other users" option disabled, but I've now activated it, so feel free to send me anything you think would be of interest for that page and Misplaced Pages. The "email from other users" option is available from the "Toolbox" on the left column, when a registered user is viewing any User page or User talk page (or "just click this link to send me an email" . If possible, send me the citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged. Books, academic and scientific journals and publications, newspapers, and magazines are the best sources, their web sites are good, while blogs and other web sites are unacceptable. I've started a new section on my sandbox, so feel free to use it instead of the email. I thought of using a reference to identitySOL for the GPS tracking units, but they published the news in their home page only, and I preferred not to use it at the moment. Last but not least, I have not visited www.wipo.int yet, but plan to do so very soon (maybe today, or at the latest tomorrow). Best. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILM October 2010 Newsletter

The Octoberr 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Next WP:USPP assessment

Hi Pjoef! Since Amy Roth's out on maternity leave, I'm pushing out the next round of assessments she needs. This time, we're comparing your assessment to readers' assessments. And instead of us assigning you articles, we're letting you pick! The full list of topics is on a subpage of the Assessment tab on our WikiProject. Please choose 10 of the articles to assess. Use the link in the section title to go to the appropriate version of the article.

Also, as a thank you for all your help, I'd like to send you a small package of Misplaced Pages swag. Please email me your address.

Please let me know if you have any questions! --Ldavis (Public Policy) (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

M. Makeba albums

Hello Pjoef, nice to meet you, just a quick note: i didn't fill in the previous/next albums in Makeba's entries because I am not that much sure we have a full discography. Back when I wrote Makeba's entry for it.wiki i mainly referred to this for discography, but every now and then I bumped into other albums that source didn't mention. There is also quite a mess about compilations, reprints with different titles, you name it. This is quite common for artists who were popular in the 1960s or earlier, and for African artists, and for artists who have relocated far and wide in their lives, and with Makeba you've got the full house. That said, I might be fine with the decision to fill in "previous/next" based on what we've got in the article, so, it was just for the sake of clarity. Thank you, see you! Moongateclimber (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, and I think the same of you. I started with the intention to expand the lead section of that article. So, I have started editing from the bottom... External links, References, See also, Discography ... with the intention to arrive to the lead section ~ hahaha. For her discography I'm using the following websites as sources: 1. allmusic MM discography; 2. discogs MM; 3. rateyourmusic MM (I find it more accurate than the previous two, especially for release dates and record labels); 4. akh's makeba (a great website about MM... I've to thank Spacini for it!) While the first two websites are considered reliable sources, but very often they have (as in the case of MM) incorrect data, the other two ~ hum ~ I'm not sure if they are considered "good sources". The "last/next" thingY in the chronology of the {{Infobox album}} templates now follows all her albums which are already on Misplaced Pages, and seems to be working fine. Thank you so much for your (much appreciated) message. All the best. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 17:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Kosmische Musik

Hi, While tidying up self-contradictions, I noticed that you recently restored Kosmische Musik from a redirect. There's some discussion going on about re-merging the information, and I was surprised no one thought to point it out to you! --Worm 14:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Third WP:USPP Assessment

Hi Pjoef! Thanks so much for your help on the Public Policy Initiative assessments. I really appreciate all your help -- we'll be in great shape when Amy gets back, thanks to all of your efforts! The next round of assessments is ready for you to review. Like the previous round, please pick 10 of the articles to review from the list, and it's especially critical that you use the version I've linked to for these.

This round measures the baseline quality of articles before our students started working on them. Many of these articles have undergone drastic revision already, so it may not be useful to leave comments about them on the talk pages. We'll be asking you to review the same set of articles once students have finished them too, so please be sure you're using the links provided so you're getting the versions immediately prior to when the students made their first edits. Ideally, these assessments should be completed by December 1.

I anticipate this taking a lot less time than previous rounds, as many of these articles are quite short. If you have extra time and want to help, please go back to round two and do a few more assessments -- especially on any articles that have only one or two assessments completed. I need a minimum of three assessments for each article, and some of the articles farther down the list still need attention.

Once again, thanks so much for your help and let me know if I can clarify anything at all! --Ldavis (Public Policy) (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Checked ~ I am ready for the next round...! :) Thanks for the advice. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 19:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool Help?

Hey Pjoef. I noticed you signed up for the Article Feedback Workgroup. I was wondering if you'd like to help us with Phase 2 of the feature. A goal for this phase is to better understand how these ratings reflect article quality. To do this, we're going to be applying the article feedback tool to page which we are fairly certain will undergo substantial revision in the near future (e.g., upcoming elections, movies, etc.). We can then evaluate the ratings before and after the substantial revisions and see if the revisions actually impact ratings.

Would you have time to help manage the articles that we're putting the feedback tool on? We're created a list of Additional Pages, but there are some other ideas that are floating around as well. It would be great if we could get some help coordinating these additional pages and then communicating with the English Misplaced Pages community. For more background, please check out this post and the Phase 2 design doc.

Let me know if you have time and we can chat more. Thanks! Howief (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Checked ~ Yes, sure... and contact me whenever you need or would like to. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey Pjoef. I just posted some suggested tasks for the workgroup on the workgroup page. Please take a look and let me know if you'll still be able to help. Thanks! Howief (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Checked ~ Thanks for your message. I will monitor and take a look at the list of additional pages. I hope to be of some help. Cheers. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey Pjoef. Just wanted to let you know that I left a comment on the Article Feedback Workgroup page. User: Sadads wants to be involved and it would be great to include him. Please take a look when you have a moment. Thanks! Howief (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Checked ~ That's great to know, any help is more than welcome, thanks for the post! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to particpate in the December 2010 Wikification Drive

Hi there! I thought you might be interested in the December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We're currently recruiting help to clear a massive backlog (22,000+ articles), and we need your help! Participants in the drive will receive barnstars for their contributions! If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 18:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC).

Checked ~ Sure! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 19:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILM November 2010 Newsletter

The November 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive has begun!

Get going.

The December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive has begun. Please get started, as the drive aims to wikify over 2,000 articles this month. We're going to need all the firepower we can get, so please remind your friends to join up as well. In case you didn't know, wikification is fairly simple: just add wiki markup, links, and similar formatting. Thanks for joining; we're looking forward to an exciting time this month!

Regards,

Ancient Apparition (talk · contribs), Mono (talk · contribs), Nolelover (talk · contribs), and Sumsum2010 (talk · contribs).

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 02:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC).

Thanks!

The Original Barnstar
For your amazing, gracious help with the WP:USPP assessment -- you've helped make our project a success! Ldavis (Public Policy) (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Expand tag is redundant when the pages is a stub

Hi. I would like just to inform you that {{Expand}} is redundant when the page is a stub per instructions. Happy editing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Very well!!! That's okay, because many people who read Misplaced Pages did not see the stub templates (they are too little and too small, and, you know, they are placed at the very bottom of a page.) So, I think that being "redundant" here is a very good thingY (especially because readers will notice the banner on top of a page, and, probably, will help by expanding it.) I do not like a lot of templates, but, IMHO, {{Expand}} and {{Expand section}} are the most useful of all templates. Anyway, thank you so very much for the advice, and happy editing! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 18:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

/* Christmas mottos */

The motto idea for those between 25th December and mid January needs consensus dtermined badly on which version should be used for which day or even whether the whole idea should be scrapped or postponed. Please help by discussion and determining consensus at WT:Motto of the day/Nominations#Christmas series and Misplaced Pages:Motto of the day/Nominations/Specials. The deadline is Friday at 9pm UTC. Simply south (talk) and their tree 23:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Please confirm your membership

This is an important message from WikiProject Wikify.

You are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Wikify. As agreed upon by the project, all members will be required to confirm their membership by February 1, 2010. If you are still interested in assisting with the project, please add yourself to the list at this page—this will renew your membership of WikiProject Wikify.

Thank you for your support,

WikiProject Wikify

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 20:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

Checked –pjoef (talk • contribs) 23:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

happy holidays from PPI

Thanks pjoef, for all your work assessing articles with WP:USPP over the past few months. I will have some results to report to the assessment team in January. The next semester should be pretty exciting there are over 25 university classes signed up with the project. Your input is helping to gauge how successful the project is, not just at improving the quality of public policy articles, but at incorporating Misplaced Pages as a teaching tool and recruiting and retaining college students as editors. we still need you in 2011, but it will mostly be assessments of student articles. Currently, there is another round of assessments to look at the improvements students made to their articles. If possible please assess by 5 January 2011; these results will be presented at an international conference later in January! Have a wonderful holiday season, all the best, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Checked –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive Needs Your Help!

Please help!

The December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive is almost complete. Please help, as the backlog has begun to climb back up. Already exceeding 20,000 articles! The backlog was down to 19,275, let's try to put it back down there by the end of the drive! We're going to need all the firepower we can get, so please remind your friends to help as well.Thanks for all your help thus far!

Regards,

Ancient Apparition (talk · contribs), Mono (talk · contribs), Nolelover (talk · contribs), Sumsum2010 (talk · contribs), and WikiCopter (talk · contribs).

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wikiproject Wikify at 01:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC).

Checked –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILM December 2010 Newsletter

The December 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive

The Special Barnstar
This Special Barnstar is given to Pjoef for wikifying 261 articles, a total of 124,542 words. Thanks for participating, and please be sure to help out at our next drive! Nolelover 01:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


The Order of the Superior Scribe of Misplaced Pages   
This Really Frickin Awesome Superior Barnstar is given to Pjoef for leading all three categories of the leaderboard. Again, thanks for participating! Nolelover 01:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Checked ~ Many thanks!!! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Editorial

Hello! Just a quick note to see if you would be interested in writing an editorial for Wikipoject Wikify, more information can be found at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Wikify/News/Preparation. Since you were the top Wikifier an editorial, of any length, would be a wonderful addition to our fist newsletter! Regards, Sumsum2010·T·C 01:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


Thanks from PPI

hi Pjoef, Thank you for all your work on assessment with WP:USPP. You assessed more articles than anyone else. I will write and report the results soon, but we have strong numbers that show that Wikipedians rate articles 4 points tougher on average than experts and Wikipedian scores are more consistent, these results are statistically significant. There will probably be mostly pre and post assessment of student work in the spring semester. You were on my mind because I entered your username so many times while working with the data. Awesome job! 69.181.205.124 (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I know that each article needs at least 3 assessments and that the deadline was on the 5th of January (2011), so I decided to do "overtime" (^___^) a day before the deadline to achieve the maximum possible number of reviews. I am very sorry if I have "bored" you, and squattered and illegally occupied your mind with my "username" (^___^). I hope I have been (an I'll be) of some help, all the best and keep me informed about the project. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

February 2011 Wikification Drive

Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog to 18,000 articles and clear the 2008 backlog, and we need your help! Top participants in the drive will receive barnstars for their contributions! If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks! Note: The drive starts February 1, but you can sign up today!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wikiproject Wikify at 00:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC).

PPI Research Update

First, thanks Pjoef, I am in awe of the work the assessment team did for this project. The results from the quantitative metric assessments were amazing, really. Check out what your work shows about Misplaced Pages article quality - I think it’s exciting, but you’ve probably figured out by now that I’m a bit of a nerd. A summary is posted on the Assessment page and a report will be on the Outreach wiki.
Second, I wanted to ask if you haven’t done many assessments on the Student post articles,I know you've probably done a bunch I really appreciate your work. So if you feel like it, articles toward the bottom have only 1 or none assessments. I know some of the material is pretty dry, but this assessment is the most important one for the fall semester and this assessment will be the primary method of showing article quality to the project grant funder. I am going to try to recruit a couple more assessors for the spring so you don't have to do everything ;) HUGE Thanks - ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 07:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Checked I've done two more assessments. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify's Coordinator Election

Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's Project Coordinator Election. There are 5 nominees for coordinator positions; Guoguo12, Nolelover, Mono, Sumsum2010, and WikiCopter. If you have a spare moment, please come and help us choose coordinators. Remember, voting ends February 1, 2011. Thanks!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 22:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC).

Checked –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The Wikifier, WikiProject Wikify's First Newsletter (January 2011)


The Wikifier
Your Wikification Newsletter – Volume I, Issue I, January 2011


From the editor • General news

Membership • December drive results

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Welcome to WikiProject Wikify's first newsletter! This newsletter will be published every two months, right before the start of the upcoming drive. February's Drive is projected to be a huge success, with announcements posted at The Signpost and Community Portal. Participants will be rewarded with barnstars. Sign up if you have not already! Project Coordinator elections are still open until February 1, 2011.

Happy Wikifying,

The coordinators of The Wikifier: Mono (talk) and Sumsum2010·T·C·Review me!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 02:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC).

WP:FILM January 2011 Newsletter

The January 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive has begun!

Get going!

The February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive has begun. Please get started, as the drive aims to wikify over 2,000 articles this month. We're going to need all the firepower we can get, so please remind your friends to join up as well. In case you didn't know, wikification is fairly simple: just add wiki markup, links, and similar formatting. Thanks for joining; we're looking forward to an exciting time this month!

Regards,

Guoguo12 (talk · contribs), Mono (talk · contribs), Nolelover (talk · contribs), and Sumsum2010 (talk · contribs).

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 00:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

Slits, Innocents, all girl bands or not?

Hello, I added The Innocents as all girl band because, like the Slits they were seen as allgirl band, but both bands had a male at times. Should I undo this? Should the Slits be there? Am I answering my own question? Is there a category that they could be in that represents predominantly female-centric bands. Thanks again for all, EstherLaver (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. When I think of all-female bands the first bands/groups that come to mind are The Shirelles, The Ronettes, The Shangri-Las, Martha and the Vandellas, and The Supremes. But, they all were all-female singing group from the 1960s. In the 1970s there were The Shaggs, Sister Sledge, Heart, The Runaways, The Go-Go's, and The Slits. I think that if The Slits are listed (and categorized) as an all-female band, then The Innocents should be listed there too. The only difference between The Slits and The Innocents is that The Slits started (in 1976–1977) as an all-female band and then Budgie replaced Palmolive in 1979, while The Innocents had Greg van Cook within their ranks since the beginning. And, what about Delta 5? They started as an all-female trio, but are not listed nor categorized as an all-female band. My opinion is leave them where they are and then see what happens. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify drive

Thanks for participating! Just don't forget to remove the {{dead link}} templates as well. Thanks!

Oh, I forgot to remove it from that article /o\!!! Thank You, Guoguo12!!! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Mathematics in medieval Islam

Don't ever move books from a carefully selected Further reading section into the References section. I'd prefer it if you just stop editing that article altogether. This article has some serious content issues and your trivial cosmetic changes are only making matters worse than better. —Ruud 14:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What? You are totally wrong!!! Next time, check it out better!!! I'm trying to clean up that article. Yes, I moved two references/books from the Further reading section to the References section, but they BOTH are used as online citations. So, it is more than RIGHT! Please, revert only when necessary. In any case, it is my intention to group all the notes, quotes, and citations. So, it would be easier to see if there are any incorrect information and sources. By the way, I have not found incorrect info, excluding the Fibonacci thing about the fractional notation. But, this is exactly what I'm doing there. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The article is full of factual inaccuracies. If you didn't spot any, you should really ask yourself if you're the right person to clean the mess. —Ruud 14:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I read that article line by line, word by word. In my latest edits I was trying to consolidate and group all the references, and to move quotes into Footnotes, sources (in a simple notation style: Author(s) last name, year) into Notes, and cited books and journals into Sources, and they all were linked together. Most of those sources are available online (for example on "gigol" book), and by using this method, it was very simple to verify all the sources. It was a really hard job, I spent about 12 hours of my time on it, and I WAS STILL WORKING on that fucking article. Who the fuck are you to say to me: "your trivial cosmetic changes" or "you should really ask yourself if you're the right person to clean the mess" if you are not able to see and understand what I was doing on that article? Well, to respond to your second question, I'm an intermediate mathematician and an Atheist, so I do not think there are many people who are better than me at that. Anyway, I've reported you for vandalism. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 16:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for having reported you, but I was really upset and this was the first time that something like an edit conflict happens to me. Do you think I am "eligible" to apply for trying to cleanup that page at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup1a? I've checked out the first 27 edits (from 2006-02-23 13:17 to 2006-04-10 04:06) and I found that they all are good (or bonafide) edits. Sorry once again, if I could help I would.
P.S.: I came across that article because I'm participating to the February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive and for no other reasons. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 17:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, the fact that you have to ask doesn't give me much confidence. The main problem with these articles is that the editor who wrote them was rather terrible at "summarizing" the sources he found into something that still accurately reflected what they said. For example, could you point out what would be wrong with the statement "The first known proof by mathematical induction was introduced in the al-Fakhri written by Al-Karaji around 1000 AD, who used it to prove arithmetic sequences such as the binomial theorem, Pascal's triangle, and the sum formula for integral cubes."?
Verifying the statements against the sources also requires you have access to them via JSTOR and a (university) library. The original editor based many of his claims on books fragments from Google Books, but that's not good enough you need to have the whole book to be sure you don't miss the context. Cleaning this up properly is much more important than cleaning this up fast. —Ruud 18:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, your point of view is right, but it is also my point of view. Well, I would like to explain what was my intention with that article. I was trying to group references starting from the top of the article and I did about 4-5% of the whole thing. For example, you wrote that I moved books from Further reading section into the References section, but those books are cited inline so there is no need nor reason to include them into a (NOT so carefully selected) Further reading section (it is also too big and with too many redlinks), while, on the contrary, it is NECESSARY to include them into the References section. In the 4-5% I did (and I'm not talking about the wikification drive because I "wikified" the article before the "cleanup-1a" template was placed and appeared on top of it) I found out a lot of inline REF TAGS or citation templates with the same name or with different names but exactly the same content (including the page number(s), volume, edition and etcetera). This was what I was trying to do. When this kind of work would be finished, then I would liked to start a much harder and longer process of verifying all sources (including the "/" sign-Fibonacci assertion, but if you or other editors delete it while I'm working on it, all become very-very difficult), which should certainly be better than some of the edits I've seen there (see ); edits that deleted references, threw away some portions of the article based on POV of editors who are not mathematicians, and involved a couple of bots to correct part of those edits. Who was that talked about a "fast cleanup"? I repeatedly placed {{under construction}} and {{In use}} on top of the page and I stopped editing the page when you "stubbed" it. Anyway, there is no problem. If I can help, then you are welcome to PM me, otherwise I will save my energy for something else. Cheers, and sorry once again. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 19:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I had a quick look at the article (I have been watching Jagged related articles for some time) and while I did not take the time to work out exactly what was going on it did appear that there was a lot of moving text around which can be very confusing to anyone trying to properly clean it up. If some editor performs significant changes to the article, the implication (when they are finished) is that they are happy with the sections edited, including the most fundamental point, namely that material is properly sourced (WP:V, WP:NPOV). That does not help clean Jagged's POV from the article. I prefer any reply to be here, with no talkback thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The Jagged 85 cleanup is based on the difference between the edits made by Jagged 85 and the previous versions, so it has little importance to know how is the current state of the article. If we will find a problem, it would be easy to find it out on the latest version of the article, and, as you know, the article was edited thousands of times and was reviewed and assessed as B-class, and I read it line by line, and word by word. As I wrote before, my current work on that article was referred only to the References sections (grouping and consolidating), so it was not moved any text visible and readable from the front-end, in other words by readers, anywhere. Before the article was tagged for cleanup, I moved the Biography section at the bottom of the article (above the See also section), but its contents remained the same. However, I said that I can manage and take care of the whole process related to that article. What is the importance of the method I use? I know what I did, and the important thing is the end result rather than the process used to achieve the goal, so I think I can help. Cheers. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
In some articles, like Mathematics in medieval Islam Jagged has written 80% of the article. —Ruud 14:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I know. I checked out his first 27 (out of 338) edits on that article (all dated back in 2006) and they all seem to be good edits. If you want, I can check the remaining 301 edits later this week. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 15:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I can point out several factual inaccuracies in the article. I don't know in which edit they where introduced, so they might well be in one of the 300 or so remain diffs you have not yet looked at. The diffs, however are most useful for the many articles where Jagged made only a small number of edits. For the articles where he is the main contributor is going to be easier to just verify each and every sentence in the latest version. —Ruud 17:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but I read it all and many times. I think that the several factual inaccuracies are problems related to the subject than to the revisions of a single editor. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 19:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
What? Are you disputing the statement at WP:Jagged 85 cleanup where it says many edits involve the undue promotion of Islamic and other non-European scholarship and achievements ... severe misuse of sources: misrepresenting what a source has asserted; reporting only one side from a source; quoting out of context; inventing claims using a source related to the topic but which does not verify the claim.? Or are you suggesting that this article is an exception where these problems did not occur (highly unlikely)? Johnuniq (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I said and I repeat that:

Mathematics in medieval Islam is mostly well-sourced, comprehensible and reasonably clear, and follows the NPOV policy, with only minor exceptions. It's the subject (History of mathematics) that is controversial. About the Jagged85 "cleanup", I don't know and and I'm not interested at all. What I know is that a good article has been stubbed and now readers can not enjoy, usufruct and make use of the content of the page, and you know this is not good! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Many editors would be horrified if told that a user had systematically added "facts" to articles with sources, but it turned out that many of the facts were made up POV nonsense, and that the sources plainly did not support the claims. This issue is not one of a "controversial topic": it is one of deliberate fabrication. That is much more damaging to the encyclopedia than a bunch of vandals going around and inserting nonsense. Your equanimity under the circumstances is puzzling, or are you saying that you are sufficiently expert in the topic that you can assess that all the claims made in the article are accurate? I do not want talkback. Johnuniq (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I am more than sufficiently expert in mathematics and a bit less in history of mathematics. Furthermore, the period taken into account in that article is one of the most obscure in human history, the Middle Ages, which saw so many books to be burnt to ashes. And yet, mathematics in medieval Islam is not "fully" part of the so-called "Western philosophies of mathematics", and it has been greatly influence by Indian and Chinese mathematicians and philosophers. About the references used in that article, it was exactly the work I was doing on it, when I was trying to tidy up all the quotes and group all of them into a proper Notes section, and to eliminate double citations (I'm talking about templates that had the same values and the same page(s) but different name identifiers) when I was stopped from working by Ruud. In fact, I was accused by Ruud of moving two books from the Further reading section to References, when they both were used as sources in that article, and of messing it up, when I was working on it. At the end of the work that I could not complete due to Ruud intervention, it was my intention, as far as possible, to check all the sources one by one, line by line, word by word. As I said before about the Jagged85's thingY, I'm not interested at all. I think that an article on Misplaced Pages has its own life. It will be edited many times and gradually with the passage of time most of the errors and inaccuracies will be detected and corrected. So, I think we should not worry about it. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
You did a good job on that article Pjoef. Thank you for taking time to try to help. I can't believe the way you were treated in this thread. I am just now beginning to see what has happened here. Aquib (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Arrows

Just wanted to say thanks for giving me the heads up about the arrows at MOTD. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You are more than welcome, and thank you for nominating The Future is Unwritten. I'm a huge fan of the only band that matters and JOE JOE is a personal HERO of mine, but in two or more years that I'm working and collaborating with MOTD, I never found the courage (^_____^) to nominate one of their quotes, sentences, slogans, phrases, or lyrics /o\. So, it is I who must thank you!!! Please, check out our WikiProject when you have time. It is not so active, but by September 2010 there is a new portal dedicated to them. If you need help on MOTD and Misplaced Pages, please don't hesitate to write me a message here, and I will be very happy to help you.

"When you blame yourself, you learn from it. If you blame someone else, you don't learn nothing, cause hey, it's not your fault, it's his fault, over there." —Joe Strummer (21 August 1952 – 22 December 2002) Never Forgotten, Always an Inspiration, Always Missed!!!

–pjoef (talk • contribs) 19:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive Needs Your Help!

Please help!

The February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive is almost complete. Please help, as the backlog is still very large. Still exceeding 20,000 articles! The goal is 18,000 or less. Lets see if we can do it! We're going to need all the firepower we can get, so please remind your friends to help as well.Thank you for all your help thus far!

Regards,

Guoguo12 (talk · contribs), Mono (talk · contribs), Nolelover (talk · contribs), Sumsum2010 (talk · contribs), and WikiCopter (talk · contribs).

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 04:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC).

Charles S. Herrman and stewardship

Mr man1951 (let's chat) 17:33, 24 February 2011 (CST)

Misplaced Pages:Talk:Charles_S._Herrman Wiktionary:Talk:Stewardship

First, I hope I haven't messed up terribly on the above links. Am totally new at attempting to contact Wikipedians such as yourself. Please forgive my ineptness!!

Dear Sir, You are one of many who have done yeoman's service for Mr. Herrman's Misplaced Pages page. I have taken a lead in trying to deal with coding that others cannot or will not do (pics, references/citations, minor corrections, occasional inserts), yet I am hardly an expert, as the numerous corrections by you and yours attest! The point, however, is that Mr. Herrman is a remarkable philosopher and the traffic to the page is wonderful given its recent origin. He is coming to be a renown authority in several areas. In this case I put up a page on Wiktionary based on his extraordinary theoretical work in the concepts of office and stewardship. Of course, I may have made mistakes or unwittingly committed violations of Wiki policy. At any rate this page, which everyone who I showed it to thought was fantastic, was summarily taken down, why I simply have no idea. Mr. Herrman lauded the effort and in fact asked me to undertake it because he has observed questionable press on the Wiktionary project and he desires that it gain greater credit, and his way of helping out is to demand of me, for example, to create the very highest quality pages that really highlight the potential for this project. Because you are one who has done so much for the quality of the Charles_S._Herrman site, I wondered if you could offer advice to me for what I may have done wrong on the Wiktionary "Stewardship" page, or perhaps intervene on our behalf with the person(s) who erased the page. And please let me thank you in advance. Mr man1951 (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am a bit confused. Do you really mean Wiktionary (the English version of our multi-language dictionary), or are you referring to Misplaced Pages (our multi-lang encyclopedia)? What is the URL (full URL: http://www.somedomain.ext/pathto/pagename.ext; please, copy and paste from the address bar in your browser) to the page that has been taken down? I found a page on Misplaced Pages named Stewardship (theology), but I do not think it is the page you are referring to. And, when you say that I am "one who has done so much for the quality of the Charles S. Herrman site", are you referring to the Misplaced Pages page? Do you know that Misplaced Pages or, more correctly, the Wikimedia Foundation has other projects such as Wikibooks, which is an open-content textbooks collection, Wikisource, our online library of free content publications, and Wikiversity for learning resources, learning projects, and research?
Okay, some of my questions are no longer valid, so do not pay any attention to them. I saw the revision history of "stewardship" entry on Wiktionary. I do not think the dictionary/wiktionary is a good place to put all that information, but I am not an expert at it, and did just few edits/contributions there. Also, the dictionary uses its own syntax, style, forms and format, and they differ from those used here on Misplaced Pages. I think it is possible to add there a link to the Stewardship article here on Misplaced Pages and "move" all the great work you did on that article on Wiktionary to the Stewardship article here on Misplaced Pages. About the Wiktionary entry, first of all try to contact Msh210 on his/her talk page and ask him/her why he/she reverted your edits on that page. I hope it will be possible to bring back some of the good parts of the content that you had put in there. My advice/suggestion is to work on the Stewardship article here on Misplaced Pages, which is certainly more suitable for "storing" all that information. In any case, I am at your disposal, and please keep me informed about that. Cheers. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Message from WikiProject Punk music

Announcements and news for WikiProject Punk music

Febuary 2011:

Update: There is currently a roll call going on at the project's talk page. If you are actively participating in the project please add your signature to the list. If you do not, you will be listed as inactive. Your name will be moved to the Inactive/former members section and/or the the project punk userbox will be removed from your user page.

Thanks for your help

You are receving this because your user name is listed in Category:WikiProject Punk music members or on our participants list. If you would like to stop these sorts of updates please remove the userbox from your profile and move your name down to the Inactive/former members section of the participants list.
Cheers

--Guerillero | My Talk 02:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM February 2011 Newsletter

The February 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Public Policy Initiative Recruiting Assessors for Spring

Hi Pjoef, I hope you are up for spring semester. I really appreciate your input. Your work assessing article quality is really valuable and generated some excellent results from fall semester. The assessment process has been streamlined and dates are clearly posted for the upcoming assessment rounds. The Initiative has a lot more classes signed up for spring, so I would like to recruit some more Wikipedian assessors, and I was hoping you could help with that. I think community members would be more likely to participate if they are recruited by Wikipedians like yourself who have a good reputation. The strategy that worked last semester was to leave an individual message on the talk pages of non-adversarial Wikipedians. I looked for people by contributions to public policy related articles and those active on the 1.0 Editorial Team. I usually mentioned in the message what specifically about their work history made me think they would be a good assessment team participant. This is super time consuming to contact like 50 people, but only doing a few is not so bad. Also, I am looking for feedback about assessing with PPI, so please check out the discussion on the assessment tab, and let me know there if you have a chance to recruit some other assessors. I hope you are looking forward to another great semester working on this project. Drop me a line - ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 06:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

PPI invite

Thanks for the PPI invite, it sounds interesting, but I don't think I'd be a good fit. I hail from Canada, disagree with a lot of American policies both foreign and domestic and probably would be too opinionated/angry in assessments (not that I wouldn't have a point, I just don't know if I'm up for feeling angry about American policies during my Misplaced Pages time, since I spend lots of other time doing that) But thanks again for letting me know about it. Nihola (talk) 05:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nihola,
I understand what you mean but maybe (certainly) I expressed myself badly. WP:USPP serves as a pilot project for assessing Misplaced Pages articles with a system's rubric and quantitative metric based on multiple fields (comprehensiveness, sourcing, neutrality, readability, formatting and illustrations) throughout the WPs banner within their talk pages, and "currently" at the bottom of their "front" pages (eg. see Fair Sentencing Act) by using the Article Feedback Tool (home page for the Article Feedback Tool at MediaWiki). It does not necessarily require a specific knowledge of USPPs, but knowledge about wiki syntax, pages layout, sourcing, comprehensibility-neutrality-readability, images and graphics, and etc.. The "required" work is slightly easier: to review c.a. 5 articles in a month / 4 times a semester. Also, professors at USPP programs in universities in the US are now participating in this initiative by asking their students to improve English Misplaced Pages articles about USPP. This will serve for both tracking changes to the article quality based on the "massive" and hopefully good quality edits made by these students, and testing out the assessment metrics for both the WP:USPP assessing banner and the Article Feedback Tool. If the experimental phase of the project will be successful, this new metric and tool will then be extended to and used by all other articles on the English Misplaced Pages. In other words, this pilot experiments with a new mechanism of quality assessment and it's more about statistics and mathematics. In any case, thank you for your prompt reply. Cheers. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Public Policy Initiative Recruiting Assessors for Spring

Thanks for the invite! Unfortunately, due to real life shenanigans, I can't guarantee that I'll be at all available in the upcoming months, so I am avoiding signing up for anything where others might depend on my work, at the moment. Sophus Bie 02:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sophus Bie,
thanks for your reply. Well, I understand your problem, which is the same as mine, but I can assure you that the assessment procedure takes no more than five minutes for each article (the time spent reading an article). If you'll have a bit of spare time to help (but in any case), we will welcome you with open arms! All the best. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive Awards!

The Special Barnstar
This Special Barnstar is given to Pjoef for wikifying 210 articles, a total of 114,255 words. Thanks for participating, and please be sure to help out at our next drive! Sumsum2010·T·C·Review me! 23:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


The Order of the Superior Scribe of Misplaced Pages   
This Superior Barnstar is given to Pjoef for appearing on the leaderboard. Again, thanks for participating! Sumsum2010·T·C·Review me! 23:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Checked ~ Thanks!

Invitation to comment on RFC regarding the stubbing (deletion) of the Mathematics in medieval Islam article

You are invited to comment on the content dispute regarding the stubbing of the Mathematics in medieval Islam article Thank You -Aquib (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Requesting assistance on a new RFC/U for Mathematics in medieval Islam

Hi Pjoef,

Thank you for your participation in the RFC regarding the stubbing of the Mathematics in medieval Islam article, and speaking out against this outrageous behavior. The issues surrounding this RFC are complex. I believe it is important they be dealt with in a way that provides support for further actions in the near future. This problem goes beyond the Mathematics in medieval Islam article, but it needs to be dealt with one step at a time in order to avoid confusion and build a comprehensive foundation for further action.

I need your help in order to move forward. The next step I hope hope to take is opening a separate RFC/U (user) to deal with inappropriate behavior in the original incident involving Pjoef, Ruud Koot and WMC (William M Connelley). The proposed RFC would deal with the sequence of events that led up to the intial stubbing, as well as the repeated re-stubbing of the article when I have attempted to revert it.

The subject matter must be narrowly limited to that appropriate for an RFC/U (user behavior) action. It covers the provocation of Pjoef by RK, the insults and attempted intimidation of Pjoef by RK and others, the lack of discussion on the talk page before the stubbing occurred, the lack of proof of problems with the article, the agreement of RK and WMC between themselves to stub the article, the way the article was initially moved rather than being stubbed (causing the temporary loss of article history), and their refusal to subsequently revert the article.

  • Remedies should include reverting the article to its pre-stubbed state, and I also firmly believe Pjoef deserves an apology.
  • In addition, I also suggest these two users should withdraw from the editing of Islamic articles and JAG-related issues.

In order to proceed, I need at least one other user to agree to certify the RFC/U (the more the better). This is done by placing specific language on talk pages at the right time, after the RFC/U has been prepared and we agree on its contents. I cannot proceed to RFC/U by myself. I also need suggestions on how the RFC/U should be worded and what should be included. I can write the RFC/U and drive the process, but I need you support.

Please reply on my talk page to let me know if you are interested in helping me recover this article and correct this injustice. If you know anyone else who would like to participate, please invite them to reply to my talk page as well.

Thank you very much,

Aquib (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply From Berr (also cc'd to Pjoef): I am an infrequent editor and so, I've never participated in an RFC. An RFC/U might be needed if Pjoef thinks it would help to start one; My inclination would be to deal with all the pages involved and addresses the overzealous editing without respect to individuals (as was the case with the apparently flawed Jagged process). That doesn't mean these individuals aren't abusing a blind spot in the system though. I am simply too new to the discussion and too unfamiliar with the "cleanup" crew's edits to make claims against them personally. However I will happily participate in an RFC/U as an unbiased observer of the recent discussion.
I would more happily participate in a process that allows us to suggest remedies to all pages in question, since at the very least folks cannot accuse me of having an "axe to grind". An AfC listing the pages that were deleted or stubbed in response to the Jag cleanup would be a great place to start. On the two talk pages for math and science, I listed the ones mentioned upthread on the talk page for Talk:Science in medieval Islam.
Regarding the RFC/U, I suggest that confer with Pjoef on how best to proceed, since he seems to be the editor whose work was most affected, being the person who took it on to review and clean up the article (which I don't have the expertise for) and the persons who deleted it wouldn't let him. I only know enough about the subject to criticize the process, and the persons involved seem to be using that loophole (what I like to call WP:BLINDSPOT) where there is a lack of expertise (compare WP:BATHWATER) by placing the burden of proof on anyone attempting to add anything even when citations are properly sourced.
Also note that the existence of a {{Verification failed}} / {{Not specifically in source}} template, used to tag individual claims in an article, makes the entire Jagged 85 verdict unnecessary (to completely stub all pages on the subject, and revert pjoef's good-faith efforts).
Like I said, I'll happily participate, but I can only speak to what I've seen and read in the recent discussion on the Islamic science and math talk pages, not to past shenanigans. And I'll actively second any request for a new AfC (??) addressing all the "Jagged" pages. Part of the problem is that the guy who actually went deleted some of the pages as part of the "cleanup" was a hit-and-run.
I wished to cc' this to Pjoef's talk page to request input, feel free to respond on my talk page. Yclept:Berr (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to add that my jaw dropped when I saw that the following had been added to the official verdict underpinning the Jagged85 cleanup: many edits involve the undue promotion of Islamic and other non-European scholarship and achievements...

I would encourage Pjoef not to abandon your good faith attempts to wikify the article, because I think the math article could use your expertise. I do not have similar expertise (as I used to have -- I did great in Calculus II but hit a brick wall shortly thereafter) but I am deeply concerned about the process that would result in such a statement as above. Sadly, my level of non-expertise is all that it takes to guard a stub like an attack dog and place the burden on others to add anything.
I also find it quite telling that all of the persons involved in the "cleanup" are limited to a small group of editors guarding the "cleanup" process for over a year now while simultaneously saying they know more about the inaccuracy of the material and simultaneously saying that none of them know enough to clean up the article themselves. something is amiss there. Yclept:Berr (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Pjoef, If you don'thave time, but support the idea of an RFC/U or more neutral process affecting all the Jagged pages, I'd be happy to participate in that process, since my concern is not the people, but the process which led to the "Islamic world scholarship" pages' wholesale deletion, and treating similar pages similarly across-wiki. Yclept:Berr (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you both for taking the time to write to me. Unfortunately, I am not an expert on RFU and AFC processes, and I don't think I've ever participated in similar discussions and processes, and my free time is very limited. I read something about Jagged85 "cleanup" process (but without taking a deeper look into) and I think that he has provided and is providing its full cooperation. I also think that an editor who made more than 60,000 edits on Misplaced Pages is to praise, thank and reward, rather than "investigate". But, as I said before, I have not read everything very carefully. In any case, we all know that many (or most) of the articles, featured here on the English Misplaced Pages, get a large number of edits and revisions during their history. My opinion is that the inaccuracies, if any, are "cleaned up" with the passage of time and edits. Consequently, a work of "cleaning", if needed, should be done in daylight and with the greatest transparency and without ever losing sight of our most important task, which is to provide readers with the best and most valuable tools (the articles) possible. I think that as a first step, we should ask for the participation and involvement of all Misplaced Pages Projects concerned with all of those articles. Once again, thank you, Aquib and Yclept Berr. Cheers and happy editing. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
(butting in. If you'd rather I didn't join this conversation please remove this) Jagged85 "cleanup" process ... he has provided and is providing its full cooperation. This is wrong. Jagged agreed to That the editor will agree to undertake a systematic programme of correcting the errors that they have inserted into Misplaced Pages articles Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jagged 85#Response to concerns but (as far as I'm aware) that didn't actually happen. Re 60k edits: valuing editors by edit count is discouraged. But if you believe Jagged deserves "praise, thank and reward" for his 50k, I hope you will extend the same to me for my 50k. Re having another RFC, or an RFC/U, along the lines of Aam's deal with inappropriate behavior in the original incident involving Pjoef, Ruud Koot and WMC (William M Connelley ) - as far as I can see, the inappropriate behaviour has all been on Aam's side William M. Connolley (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
My reply to William M. Connolley is on his talk page (sorry William, I forgot to write something in the headline). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 13:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Pjoef and Yclept, you are my heroes. I totally understand your positions. I count you among my friends. I hope we all meet, again and often, in the days and years to come! -Aquib (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
All: Thanks! Aquib, not to say an RFC/U isn't needed, but if we bring in the various WikiProjects associated with the pages then the best way to do that is to try a depersonalized approach first, to deal with the issue. Revisit the Jagged 85 issue through an article-centric RfC (is that called an AfC? see, I know little about the admin rulebook) addressing all the issues that have come up post-"Jagged 85 cleanup", and invite the various WikiProjects to participate. This would especially help dig up persons with additional subject matter expertise to comment on the underlying issue. If that fails to get off the ground or persons insist that the old Jagged 85 thread is the only proper forum for the issue, then you can still pursue further action. Not to say I wouldn't support an RFC/U if Pjoef does, simply to clear the air. But, pjoef and I are unfamiliar with the ins and outs of an RfC, which makes one about an article instead of a person easier to start. Also, no one has actually started a (depersonalized) RfC about the issue as a whole:
  • Is this a dispute about verifiability, or is it a disputed topic, i.e. a debate about historical revisionism and undue weight inherent in the subject matter?
  • If the former, the template {{Verification failed}} / {{Not specifically in source}} obviates (renders unnecessary) the need to stub the entire series of articles, which also makes it difficult for editors to figure out what material was at the source of the dispute.
  • If the latter, one possible solution would be to put all disputed claims (if the dispute is essentially an academic dispute over revisionism and presentism and sources can be found for both sides) in a separate section in each page labeled "Claims for additional discoveries by Islamic scholars" wherein a caveat can be clearly stated with the opposing sources. Sincerely, (no need to ping me on this reply) Yclept:Berr (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Aquib... but that "heroes" thingY reminds me of The Stranglers' song "No More Heroes"... great band and song!!!

I agree with Yclept Berr 110% and I am unfamiliar with RFC either. As I wrote on my reply to William M. Connolley, I feel responsible in the incident and I'm so sorry for all the readers who were deprived of that article. In my humble opinion, a depersonalized approach, which will involve some WPs, should be the best solution to fix all problems. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 13:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

A Copy of My RFC Request

Pjoef, thanks. Aquib has requested an ArbCom hearing appealing the old Jagged RfC and concerning the users involved in the edit disputes. As for finding a way forward, to follow up on my proposal, I formally requested a new RfC on the page for Wikipedia_talk:RFC/Jagged_85 to deal with the Islamic scholarship articles specifically, including the math article.

Here are my (expanded) bullet points for the new RfC: (note that unlike ArbCom and RfC/User, this is not a request for action "against" something, so it should be easy to get others to help since I've never started one before)
  • Is this a dispute about verifiability, or is it a disputed topic, i.e. a debate about historical revisionism and undue weight inherent in the subject matter? For instance, the official verdict underpinning the Jagged85 cleanup begins: many edits involve the undue promotion of Islamic and other non-European scholarship and achievements...
  • that an RfC devoted to cleanup of all edits by a specific user is not the proper forum for fixing the overall issues surrounding the Islamic scholarship articles specifically, as a topical matter; because i. Jagged edits aren't necessarily restricted to those articles that have been stubbed; ii. the accuracy of specific "Jagged edits" is contested by various editors -- Jagged doesn't own those diffs, and neither do the people contesting them, it only matters if useful and factual info can be restored; and iii. to deal with overzealous edits in the wake of the Jagged cleanup (e.g. the user who deleted Islamic metaphysics outright ) so a new RfC is needed to deal with those articles specifically.
  • Similarly, user User:Pjoef who tried to clean up one of the articles writes, " is mostly well-sourced, comprehensible and reasonably clear, and follows the NPOV policy, with only minor exceptions. It's the subject (History of mathematics) that is controversial. About the Jagged85 "cleanup", I don't know... What I know is that a good article has been stubbed and now readers can not enjoy, usufruct and make use of the content of the page" ~~(User:Pjoef)
  • If the former, the template {{Verification failed}} / {{Not specifically in source}} obviates (renders unnecessary) the need to stub the entire series of articles, which also makes it difficult for editors to figure out what material was at the source of the dispute.
  • The cleanup in can continue using those tags, or we can retire RfC since it is based on a user dispute. (Depending on how the new RfC is resolved -- this RfC could still be needed to deal with tagging and verifying the Jagged edits, whereas the new RfC is about restoring deleted content and making sure a whole section of Misplaced Pages isn't stubbed because of it.) Another reason a new successor RfC dealing specifically with the Islamic scholarship pages and canvassing the affected WikiProjects (Middle Ages, Islam, History of Science, etc.) would move things along.
  • If the latter, one possible solution would be to put all disputed claims (if the dispute is essentially an academic dispute over revisionism and presentism and sources can be found for both sides) in a separate section in each page labeled "Claims for additional discoveries by Islamic scholars" wherein a caveat can be clearly stated with the opposing sources.
  • Additionally, the new RfC would have the scope to consider page action to standardize the naming of all these pages so they can actually be found. On either the Science or Math in medieval Islam talk pages, I made a proposal which I would wish to incorporate into the new RfC (severally from the rest), namely to rename the key pages at issue, most or all of which are affected by the Jagged RfC, Medieval Islamic X:
This has the added benefit of being one of the few naming conventions which all sides could agree on (Ruud, one of the "curators" of the Jag-affected pages, suggested it, the person who came in opposed the page on general principle because they thought it was a "religious science" page liked it, and the persons concerned about the recent stubbing) could tentatively support when the issue was repeatedly brought up on one of the talk pages. It also meets WP:MOS for conciseness and clarity. Only reason it hasn't been tried was because the old, old discussion drifted off into the "Arab vs. Islamic as an adjective" issue, which since got resolved in favor of "Islamic".
Oh Yeah... and I asked them, "How do I start one?" Yclept:Berr (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Music venue page

Pjoef, it's funny you should mention punk / alt rock, which I see you are a fan -- I happen to be involved in setting up a community center in my home town (DC area) which is (or used to be) a notable center of the American punk scene. So a lot of punk bands play there at the venue. In fact, I've been working on a wiki page for the venue which is a nonprofit, but I have to be careful to check my sources, since[REDACTED] has rules about starting a page on a subject you're involved in, and one of the local editors probably will pick up on the fact, so I'll have to sun it by him, which I'm dreading.

Sorry for spamming you with replies, on the Islamic Math article. :-) No need to ping me back Yclept:Berr (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup has been appealed to ArbCom

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Pjoef, since your incident comes up in the discussion, I have named you - as a courtesy, thanks -Aquib (talk) 04:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Pjoef: Difference between revisions Add topic