Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:22, 13 December 2006

Algaculture

Hi... you put this on the clean up page, and I was wondering if you'd be willing to take cracks at it with me. I started to prosify and refize this monster, and just now once I had some actual content built up moved all the inbody link farms (nearly all look like GOOD resources) to the talk page for storage and use. I left the massive external links section for now--this article looks to be overflowing with good RS stuff. Any help would be appreciated. · XP · 15:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

yes, XP, i would like to help. this is an important page possibly because of the coverage of algal biodiesel. I'm not sure what i should be doing first, and i'm not up to speed with the whole mass of data about editing.

any suggestions of what i could do would be appreciated. David Woodward 03:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

WCBI

Actually, yeah, other TV stations have links of current and past personalities, for the purpose of tracking their career history. (Example, Cynthia Bowers, who now works for CBS News). If an anchor went to a larger market, it would be just as significant. This issue has already been debated, and I'm restoring the content. umlaut1965 02:33 UTC, 27 August 2006

OK. · XP · 17:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Johnny Cash image

I can't find any evidence that the image is free. Given that they hold a certain amount of Johnny Cash non-free material in their collection it seems likely it's not. I can't seem to find any decent alternatives. One thing - he was awarded a medal at the whitehouse on April 22/23 2002. Given that being seen with a celeb is always good press, it's likely that there might be official photos of the event - but I can't find any of the images. If you have access to a US public library news paper archive it might be worth searching for the issue for the following few days to see if anything shows up - if the photo is credited to the whitehouse then it's free to use. Megapixie 13:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Merging these esolangs

Hi,

There is a list of esolangs, but several of these articles have more content than a list could accomodate; others have questionable notability, and might not belong even on a list. If you're asking, "Why not merge all these into one AfD?" -- that is exactly what caused the headaches at DRV in the first place, for which see the link provided in each new AfD. Little bit of overkill, maybe, but individual listing is the best way to evaluate merit and allow for GFDL merging, if needed. Best wishes, Xoloz 04:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Jones

There is not a single structural engineer who has published findings supporting any part of Jones' "theory". Furthermore, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the largest and oldest such fraternity in the U.S., have, as a whole, endorsed the work of their individual members who have postulated the so-called "official" explanation. There is no "controversy" among experts; only among laymen. Cheers, Levi P. 18:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The wording is properly reflective of reality. That is my main concern. Further, the assertion is easily falsifiable. While I understand your concern in general, the overwhelming sourced evidence in this instance supports the wording. Levi P. 18:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. You should keep your eye on the article, if your inclined (we can use as many clear-thinking people as we can find). Cheers, Levi P. 18:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Block

I've blocked you and Mongo for 12 hours per . It looks to me like you both went over 3RR. In the future, even if you have what you think may be something allowed by policy that does not make it advisable to call what others are doing vandalism nor does it make it advisable to repeatedly revert them. Furthermore, as a side note, if you had made your initial note a bit smaller and more tasteful this would likely have been avoided. JoshuaZ 03:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Joshua. My apologies; it won't (I hope) happen again and I'll dial it down. · XP · 03:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Per some discussion with Mongo I am unblocking both of you with the understanding that further edit warring will not occur. Please do not dissappoint me. JoshuaZ 04:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be ok, however, given that you and Mongo already revert warred over this I think you should probably either a) find another user to put it in and/or b) get Mongo's ok to add it. Also in regard to the initial phrasing you used, the previous AfD is more relevant to the people in that discussion rather than the closing admin and should be phrased as such (hopefully that makes sense). JoshuaZ 04:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The comment isn't obviously relevant to the AfD. Presumably if he does delete the article that would be relevant if you brought the article to deletion review but it it isn't relevant to whether or not the article should stay. I would therefore advise you to leave it out of the AfD. JoshuaZ 04:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

CD AfD

Hi XP, I'm not sure that my taking action here would have a calming effect on the discussion. As part of my vote I did mention the previous AfD; I quoted from it and linked to it. Mongo hasn't convincingly raised anything new, to my mind, but I don't think an impartial admin will miss that. Mongo has drawn attention to it at the top, and I take it the only thing left to do is to add a link under his comment to clarify what he means by "previous discussion", perhaps noting that most of the arguments (especially "it's POV fork" vs. "it's a notable theory") repeat. Just to be clear: is that what you are asking me to do?--Thomas Basboll 06:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Re. this edit, I recommend avoiding speculation of this nature. Tyrenius 04:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Your comment violates WP:AGF, and only serves to increase confrontation, of which there is already an excess. I had refactored Tbeatty's remark by the time I got your post, and left a warning for him. Tyrenius 04:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Stick to reasoned argument based on policy, which I have noticed you can do very well. There are enough neutral editors to weigh up matters on their merits. Tyrenius 04:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Defamation

Libel is prohibited anywhere on wikipedia, as everything is publicly accessible. Furthermore, user pages are stored by Google. Do a search and see. Tyrenius 05:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Defamatory (or even derogatory — especially when not soundly referenced) comments are taken very seriously, as Jimbo Wales has affirmed, and as is stated clearly in WP:BLP, so they should indeed be removed. Tyrenius 06:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD lists in user space etc

First of all, no space on wiki is "private". However, if I read you correctly, then it is something that MONGO has endorsed already, so I don't see the problem. User spaces are there for the user to do things which will help him/her further work on the encyclopedia. Tyrenius 05:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI User:AudeVivere/To-do, User:GabrielF/911TMCruft. Tyrenius 17:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! · XP · 04:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

DRV

Would you please look at my proposal re 911tRtT? Thanks, — Xiutwel (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD

You might want to add your observation as a comment, namely "the Keep arguments are rooted in solid policy, whilst the Delete policy based is the heavily disputed and contested Forking belief" or any other relevant points. Tyrenius 14:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've just noticed. Tyrenius 15:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Dunno, my eyes are glazing over at this point. I've left my own comment. Tyrenius 15:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

my new page

Thank you, ill keep it in mind, although i have put the 911 issue at rest for the time being. Let them delete everything if they want to, it will be a good lesson for wikipedia. --Striver 23:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

JWW

I removed the afdanons template, as the debate has not been affected by anons / newbies / single purpose accounts, at least to this point. I'm a big fan on this template, but I don't think it shouldn't be used pre-emptively. Deizio talk 22:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Tricky call then... the tag is really aimed at non-Wikipedians who see a message on a forum or similar. Campaigning to get established Wikipedians to vote is slightly different as they are more than entitled to vote, however if a user invites lots of other users they know are sympathetic to a certain point of view to get involved then that could be canvassing or votestacking, both covered at WP:SPAM. Deizio talk 23:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate comment

This is an entirely inappropriate comment.

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this.--Tbeatty 08:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Username?

What username are you editing under now? Morton Devonshire 18:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Seabhcan Arbcom

I agree. Abe Froman 15:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

XP, your comment to Durin was absolutely inappropriate, as was your generalization and the sweeping smear tactic you employeed. Please don't exert your POV in a manner that is not WP:CIVIL, and try to WP:AGF. This is a formal civility warning, please act accordingly. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please clarify which diff you found to be a violation of policy, and please clarify if factually it was accurate based on 1) evidence and history from current and previous arbcom, 2) evidence of editing patterns, 3) history of associations. I see no violation in accurate and blunt dissection of facts, and also please show me what inapppropriate language I used. · XP · 18:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You've made a number of incivil comments, but the one I'm referring to specifically is this one. You have made an ad hominem attack on not only Durin, but anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of how ArbCom should rule. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Question

Are you User:Rootology? Tom Harrison 19:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not. Why do you ask? · XP · 19:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)