Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CTSWyneken (talk | contribs) at 15:42, 16 August 2006 (Martin Luther GA Nom). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive1

Good call on the Thayer image.

Amazing color. Sylvanus Thayer deserves a first class image. The article looks 100% better with this single change. BusterD 04:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Need help in discussing a list

Greetings; if you would visit the call for discussion at this page, I'd be grateful for your input. Thanks! Talk:List_of_German-language_philosophers Best, Universitytruth 13:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You have a real problem with reading

I won't be the least bit generous with you on this. The article is quite clearly spiked with pro-MSG material. I've made note of it in the discussion page Talk:Monosodium_glutamate#Revert_on_July_13.2C2006. I did not revert without researching, cause or thinking. I'm not going to get into a revert war with you Misplaced Pages:Reverting#Revert_wars_considered_harmful_.28the_three_revert_rule.29. I'll give you 24 hours to decide, if you want to research this article and give a real response. If not, I'll go straight to arbitration.

--meatclerk 06:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You screwed up the references, you see that you fix it. Dr Zak 11:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Parrot Award

Hah it looks great, thanks :) Dionyseus 00:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What a honour!! Thanks very much, I squwak with pride! Bwithh 02:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Raising the Stakes on You

This is to advise you. I intend to make a complaint in the near future of your methods. My complaints are as such.

1. Not acting in good faith.
2. failure to read "discussion page".
3. failure to read "summary" information.

I'm more than willing to admit and fix any gray areas. I believe I have. I know I will in the future.

But Image:MPCivicCenter2006_500px.jpg is by no means scanned. This points to your presumptuous nature and unwillingness to act in good faith.

I'm not saying anything else. My suggestion is we stay clear of each other for the next 5 days to let things cool down.

--meatclerk 06:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you get familiar with fair use. You are using a picture of a copyrighted map as a map; it's beyond what fair use would permit. And please don't use phat words on this page. Dr Zak 16:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

5 days. --meatclerk 05:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr Zak to be fair to you and get the images reinstated without issue, I have updated the reference page for Image:MPCivicCenter2006_500px.jpg. You'll note the image is NOT scanned, but in fact a sign posted on the Civic Center Grounds. Note the original is oversized (2080x1368px) and large 574K. As such, there should be no copyright issue.

On the other image Image:RWC-NaturalFeatures-Pg.21_519px.jpg, I'll update the reference later.

--meatclerk 18:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Images

Thanks for replacing the images on my user page! Paul 10:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Economic totalitarianism

This is pointless. You cannot just "speedy close" my nomination here. The outcome of the deletion review can never lead to deletion since the article has been changed in the meanwhile. Therefore the 3rd nomination for deletion based on a criteria different than the one used in the two earlier nominations. Intangible 14:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Patience! Dr Zak 14:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This "patience" results in unneccessary "name calling" in the deletion review and on the talk page of the article. If one is to relist this article for nomination on the basis of WP:OR it will -fail- any deletion attempt. I will seek a fourth nomination. Intangible 14:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If you must... I see three "overturn and delete", seven "relist" and two "keeps". Dr Zak 15:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

MSG Cleanup, Archive and Revert

I think I'm, thanking you for doing some of the above. However, I'm left confused. Please confirm your intent and actions. A note on the MSG discussion page would be best.

Thanks --meatclerk 05:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

To keep the talk page within reasonable size discussions are copied to an archive page. That makes the old material easily accessible (it's now all at Talk:Monosodium glutamate/archive1). If the material were deleted one would have to go through the page history to find a particular discussion, a tedious task, especially on dialup internet. Dr Zak 05:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. To keep things clear. It's clear now. Thanks. --meatclerk 08:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

PNG vs JPG

Can you walk me through the logic here. I noticed you switched the Martin Luther timeline to a PNG. So what is the advantage of a screen capture being saved as a PNG over JPG? Thanks David D. (Talk) 20:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

JPG employs a lossy compression algorithm built around wavelets - essentially the Fourier Transform is involved. When sharp transitions between dark and light occur one must employ many Fourier terms and still ends up with series termination errors. (What this means is: compression is inefficient, and there are noticeable compression artefacts. Just look at the JPEG image with, say Microsift Paint and zoom in, you'll see!) PNG, on the contrary is lossless and better suited to line art. Dr Zak 21:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, i see the difference. I'll redo the png version from scratch, but leave the one i just upload for now, since it is the correct version despite being a png saved from a jpg (obviously artafcts will still be present). David D. (Talk) 21:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What I did was to save a screen capture of Template:Timeline Martin Luther as PNG image. The compression artifacts are gone, but Windows XP obviously does anti-aliasing when rendering the picture... didn't notice that! Dr Zak 21:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'll check my screen capture from a MAC. Although, i suspect the anti aliasing may be worse. Regardless i learned some good stuff. Another option is to clean up the screen capture in photoshop. or even just recreate it in illustrator and save as an SVG. I'll think about it. David D. (Talk) 21:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Dorsey Brothers stamp

Image:Dorsey stamp.jpg What is wrong with having an image of a U.S. postage stamp? Is it not fair use to use postage stamp images? Talk to Dr. M 21:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, since 1978 US postage stamps are copyrighted by the USPS. We can use pictures of stamps only to illustrate the stamp itself, but not to discuss the subject of the stamp. An article where stamp images are used correctly would be the article on the Transportation coils, which talks at length about that series of stamps. On the other hand, one can't use Image:Transportation coil, Canoe, plate 2.jpg to give an illustration of a canoe. Perhaps a better example is at Brontosaurus, which mentions that the Post Office should have known better than issuing a stamp with a dinosaur that never existed. The stamp image is not used to illustrate what the Brontosaurus looks like, instead it appears in the context of discussing the "Dinosaur" series of stamps. Please read Fair use and Misplaced Pages:Fair use for the fuill story. Dr Zak 22:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:OR

It's a borderline case. Since there is a citation to a reliable source who described them that way, that would make the excerpt not OR, since it's the cited source that is describing them that way, and not a Misplaced Pages editor. That's my take on it, anyway. Nandesuka 15:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Now with the direct attribution the sentence is approaching meaningless hagiography... mostly harmless! Dr Zak 16:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Not quite sure what the point is

Jane Goodall is a scientist, an expert in her field and on the subject matter of Langley's book, which she is endorsing. Why is she doing this? I don't know, and don't care. I was speaking as to whether Langley's work is peer-reviewed. It is. IronDuke 20:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how familiar you are with science - but calling Jane's endorsement of Gill's white paper peer-reviewed is stretching it. Peer review is done by (typically anonymous) reviewers to advise the editor about the novelty and technical correctness of a publication. I must know because I have reviewed a couple of papers.

I doubt I called Goodall's foreword white paper, since I'd not heard of the term until you linked to it (and it it no way applies here). "Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the field." Goodall is an expert. She reviewed it favorably. IronDuke 23:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

A "white paper" is a document that argues a position. Maybe you can elaborate why "Next of Kin" doesn't argue the pusition of the BUAV. The report even has a "Call to Action" on page 6. To comment on the foreword - sentences like "We must pressure scientists to use ... technologies that make the use of non-human primates ... obsolete" isn't what one would find in a referee's report. You review a paper for novelty and watertightness; this is endorsing a position. Not that there is anything wrong with the act, it's the business of the BUAV to lobby against use of animals, but we shouldn't misrepresent this. Dr Zak 01:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This was in reference to her notability for the AfD. I believe it strongly supports the idea that Langley is notable. But the AfD is closed and the article's been kept, so the point is moot. IronDuke 15:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Such endorsements are solicited in advance, and we shouldn't forget that the BUAV - which commissioned the report - is amongst the largest anti-animal-experimentation groups in the UK. Having Goodall's name associated with it says more about the organization than the author. About Gill's notability we have to disagree. Dr Zak 22:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree to disagree. IronDuke 02:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Carl Alexander's phone number

Hi, Dr Zak. In my most recent post to Talk:Uranium trioxide, I am asking you to correspond or speak with Dr. Carl Alexander at Battelle (who was a coauthor of the Ackermann et al (1960) paper on UO₃ gas, and the sole author of another pertinent paper last year) in hopes that we might resolve our dispute about the production of uranium trioxide gas from uranium combustion. Dr. Alexander and I have been corresponding, and he is responsive. I want you to have his phone number here, because although it is in public documents, the Battelle directory isn't easily available (although dial-by-name from their main number works fine), and so I'm not sure I want it recorded in the article talk page out of courtesy. You can reach Dr. Alexander at +1-614-424-5233. LossIsNotMore 03:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Lcdcp

I see you redirected it to DCP, thank you. Question, what happens to Lcdcp now? --meatclerk 05:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

ONJ

I have left a message on Talk:Bisphosphonate on the linking of osteonecrosis of the jaw. JFW | T@lk 10:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Gill Langley

It's awfully quiet there since I stuck my nose in... - brenneman 06:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll probably be called names if I go back to that denizen of the Corridors of Power. :-( Dr Zak 14:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from Yanksox

Hey, Dr Zak, thanks for supporting my RfA, with a tally of 104/4/7... I am now an admin!!! I was and still am very flattered by all the kind comments that I recieved, I will also take into account the comments about how I could improve. I guarantee I will try my best to further assist Misplaced Pages with the mop. Feel free to drop in and say hi or if you need anything. Again, thank you so much! Yanksox 07:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Luther GA Nom Comments

The Martin Luther article has been nominated for Good Article status. A reviewer dropped by and said that everything but the Luther and Antisemitism section qualified. Mantanmoreland said, in effect, the section was just fine but the rest was hagiographic. While I intend to leave the issue well enough alone, I thought you might be interested in helping see if he will offer us some suggestions. --CTSWyneken 15:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)