Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 23:31, 13 March 2011 (→AE CU request: thanks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118
edit

Mohannad

Requesting unprotection on the Mohannad page please, to make an article on the name, and list bearers of the name. John Cengiz talk 00:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi John, I've unprotected the page. PhilKnight (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Cheers Phil. John Cengiz talk 00:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Appendix

Requesting ability to edit the Appendix page, there is hearsay and there isn't scientific proof, so it needs to be changed. Misplaced Pages is about facts, and I wish for it to stay that way.

SageKalzi (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)SageKalzi

You can make a request at Requests for page protection. Incidentally, I was mildly amused by this edit. PhilKnight (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Alex Duval

Hi i was wondering to what purpose was "alex duval" deleted, it was put up for a specific purpose, and then five minutes later it was taken down. I would like to see this page put back up.

Have a look at WP:AUTHOR - does the subject meet the requirements? If so, then you could recreate the article, and include references which demonstrate this. PhilKnight (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

what does this means ?

You write:

Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.' which is essentially similar.

Do you really think I am doing all this? If so, why? All I am trying to do is to write an article about Kendrick analysis. Kehrli (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Not all, no. But then again, I didn't say you were doing all of the above. However, the diffs in the evidence presented by Kkmurray indicate there are meaningful concerns with your conduct. PhilKnight (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Kitten

Carolmooredc has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Mathematical exposition: MHP decision

Dear Phil, You suggestion that mathematical exposition be limited to arithmetic operations and the like is too severe. Mathematical articles are written for professionals, and even expository material is written mainly for college instructors with Ph.D.s.

For example, in the article on Shapley–Folkman lemma, I have glossed Ekeland's use of the closure operation, which is so obvious to specialists that Ekeland had no need to explain it. I provided a simple explanation in terms of sequential convergence, which makes the result available to readers with a background in calculus (I hope). No mathematician would characterize my gloss as OR. Yet, I am afraid that your proposed wording would ban such exposition (which is more complicated than arithmetic operations).

Because your language may influence other editing decisions, I would ask that you please consider asking for comment at the WikiProject Mathematics.

Finally, please consider loosening the restriction. I would suggest "Misplaced Pages editors may not conduct original research. It is appropriate for editors to insert appropriate background information in presenting research in secondary sources for a wider audience. Such expository writing should be limited to consensual explanations, rather than excuses to introduce original research."

I appreciate your work on this and other problems.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 20:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kiefer Wolfowitz, thanks for your note. I think we agree that if a particular derivation has been published, then to gloss over the details, or for that matter to omit them completely, isn't original research. Looking again at the principle, I guess it should be rephrased. PhilKnight (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick and thoughtful response, here and on the ArbCom (whenever I have checked). Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 21:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I gave the example on my talk page.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 22:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

AE CU request

Hi, I am contacting you in your capacity as a currently active checkuser. At WP:AE#Name-changing reverts in the EE topic area, I am investigating revert patterns with respect to the editors and articles named there. The article histories include three anonymous reverts (, , ) that could have been made by some of these editors while logged out. Could you check whether that is the case? If it is, I would like to be able to take these reverts into account as part of the edit-wars under investigation, and making such reverts while logged out is problematic in and of itself. Thanks,  Sandstein  22:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, I've checkusered the 3 IPs, and haven't checkusered any of the logged-in editors. Results as follows:

• 144.132.72.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - no logged in editors who have edited articles in relation to Eastern Europe.
• 79.164.31.25 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - unfortunately as checkuser results are only available for the last 3 months, no information is available.
• 65.43.96.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - no logged in editors who have edited articles in relation to Eastern Europe.

PhilKnight (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!  Sandstein  23:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)