Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ideogram (talk | contribs) at 23:50, 27 February 2012 (→WikiProject restructuring: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1

List of Solid State Drive Manufacturers

I think we can manage to maintain a list of companies that produce SSDs as long as we don't have to list each of their SKUs. I recommend we have some source for each entry to keep with the Misplaced Pages source standards. I would be happy to contribute with you. We would need to rename the article I would think. Will that be a problem? § Music Sorter § (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Zum zum gali gali.."American Zionist song"

Please see Talk:Zum_Gali_Gali#Possible_reference for comments I added for your informationSpatulli (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

GNOME

Thanks for your tips on GNOME. I've replied on the article talk page. Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 21:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Computing assessment banners

PNM - Honestly, I don't see a problem with it because what you added after I assessed the two WikiProject banners for AAA protocol it wasn't even there to begin with. While I do understand what you mean by the difference looking at the revision of my edit and yours to see what you've added to WikiProject Computer Security banner. Every WikiProject has their own way of doing things, on Misplaced Pages and over the last 3 weeks I've been caught up in some discussion about my edits which I do see now they are only minor changes that I can add to my edits to help the contributors coming back and explaining it again. Anything you need to someone to look at on WikiProject Computing or WikiProject Computer Security, I'll certainly look at, it would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source

Thank you for reviewing John Graham (racing driver) on the DYK talk page. You have stated that this source is unreliable, but User:Nascar1996 disagrees. I am unable to locate another source for the article. What makes the above source unreliable? The Utahraptor/_Contribs 00:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I posted more detail about my concern with the sourcing at this thread. --Pnm (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Notable ?

Responded to you on the discussion page at List of social bookmarking websites --DOHill (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for C-SPAN Video Library

On 15 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article C-SPAN Video Library, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the C-SPAN Video Library offers a complete archive of the American legislative broadcaster's content since 1987? If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Question about C-SPAN Video Library

Hello again, Pnm! First, I want to say thank you for nominating C-SPAN Video Library for DYK, which was very cool to see. Now, reviewing the article and the Talk page today, I noticed that first you had rated it B-class, then downgraded it to C-class, with the edit summary observation that there seemed to be more to say. Now, having read absolutely everything I could find about it, both on the open Internet and on the Nexis newspaper database, I can vouch that there is almost nothing left to include (that could be considered encyclopedic) based on what has been published about it. So I am moved to ask: would you mind re-appraising the article, or perhaps give me an idea what should be added in order to raise its quality rating? I realize the ratings are somewhat arbitrary, though being somewhat familiar with the rating system, I believe this one is pretty strong. My response is partly informed by having another article that I worked on, WCSP-FM, promoted to GA status on another editor's nomination. Your thoughts? WWB Too (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought the article was missing information about content licensing and the technology used to run the site. There's a section on content licensing in the main C-SPAN article but I thought it needed both expansion and a summary placed in this article. I'm on a semi-wikibreak this week but I'll take a closer look when I get back. --Pnm (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

EZRA - Parish Management Software

Hai, Pnm... Thanks for reviewing the article. I've removed the citations from unreliable sources. Hope this is fine. If you feel there are more changes needed, please inform me. I'll do the required as soon as possible. Balanivash (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Amiga

See User talk:JPG-GR#Template:WikiProject Amiga --Tothwolf (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

EZRA

Hey PNM, sorry, if I have in anyway offended you by removing the proposed for deletion tag in the EZRA article. I thought that as you said the citations were from unreliable sources, removing it would help. I'll try to include proper references asap. As this is my first article, please help me in improving the article. Balanivash (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Computer aided dispatch

Hi there, Can i just ask the reasoning behind moving computer aided dispatch to a hyphenated version. I can see nothing particular in wp:hyphen which supports the move, so i was hoping you might be able to give some more information, rather than just reverting the move?

Regards, OwainDavies _(talk) edited at 20:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"Computer aided" is a compound adverb adjective – it's #3 in WP:HYPHEN. I noticed you'd moved it from Computer-assisted dispatch to Computer aided dispatch based on usage in peer-reviewed journals, which makes sense; I just think the hyphen ought to be there, too. --Pnm (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

re: Program analysis

I should have used the {{catsplit}} template, but it didn't allow me note into which categories the contained articles should have been moved. As I've already performed the actual splitting, I've proposed the category for renaming. Cheers, —Ruud 13:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

re: Thank you (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Computing/sidebar)

re: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Computing/sidebar. No problem. Your revert regarding the MS/MS Windows order makes sense, and I did hesitate before swapping them. --trevj (talk) 08:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Dailymotion

I changed the importance of Dailymotion for the Websites workgroup from Low to High, based on the fact that it is one of the 50 most visited sites in the world (according to the article) and that YouTube has been set at Top priority. However, you are a workgroup member, not I, so I'll understand it you wish to change it, (though I for one cannot see how it could be anything less than mid-level). best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

MARSEC-XL

You PRODded this article, and it was deleted.Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider taking it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The related Marine Software Engineering was also restored at REFUND. Take a look, feel free to AfD at your leisure. l'aquatique 05:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Ayam (software)

has now been completely removed from Misplaced Pages. I hope you can sleep better now.

Publishing categories

I noticed your recent cat change, and commented here. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course! --Pnm (talk) 07:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

CFD follow-up

You recently participated in this discussion. There is now a follow-up discussion here. Good Ol’factory 22:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: the Computing category

Hello. The CFD discussion that you started on Feb. 7 has been procedure closed today, with the result being effectively no consensus. I am just wondering what your intentions for the category are. Will you restart another discussion about including Computing in the main topic category?

On a side note, I noticed that you categorized Computing under Digital technology. I think this is too narrow, given that analog computers exist. I think categorizing Computing under Technology is more appropriate. Is this acceptable? Regards, Rilak (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If there was no consensus, Computers should be reinstated as a main topic classification, where it was at the start of discussion. (Computing is fine under Technology – it's a big topic. It's also fine under Digital technology – computing is overwhelmingly digital / analog computers are rare. --Pnm (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Spindle (computer)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Spindle (computer) , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. § Music Sorter § (talk) 05:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Access time

An article that you have been involved in editing, Access time , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. § Music Sorter § (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Women of psychology project

Hi Pmn, I have just started a project called "women of psychology." The project page is http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/women_of_psychology. This project's goal is to create and develop articles about women who have contributed significantly to the field of Psychology. At this time, there are relatively few articles about emminent women psychologists on Misplaced Pages. This project seeks to remedy this situation. I am currently seeking support from women's psychological organizations (AWP, APA Division 35, APA's International Office, others) for their help and support for this project. The first stage of this project will involve creating a list of notable women who have contributed to the field of psychology. As those accumulate, the next task with be to create articles with relevant, well-organized information about their contributions and their histories. I thought you might be interested in this project considering your work on "Women and Psychology." Any support or suggestions would be welcome.WebMaven2000 (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"Positive criticism" (re: Societal views on patents)

Hi Pnm, thanks for your edit to Societal views on patents. I replied on the talk page. --Edcolins (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Painting with a broad brush

Referring to your remarks at Talk:C standard library, I think there's a difference between personal attacks and simply having a different point of view. I don't think I've made any personal attacks but I certainly have been the target of them and I'm disappointed that no one has stepped up to point out that such attacks aren't appropriate and, now, by the implication that there's little difference between 1exec1's behavior and mine. This is painting with a broad brush that if two people are having trouble getting along, they must be equally at fault. That's just not always the case and it's not the case here. Msnicki (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. I don't think I read so carefully as to identify this before, but you're right: I see that you didn't make personal attacks. Actually I can't find personal attacks targeted at you either (in this thread), though I might be missing them.

What I was responding to is what I perceived as a rude and dismissive tone toward each other, in posts you each made in the thread, and a perceived focus on what the other said and did instead of on what to call the article. That's what I meant when I wrote, "please lay off each other" and "please keep page on topic." See your response to my initial comment, for example.

I didn't suggest you were equally at fault. --Pnm (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, again, I don't think I have been rude or dismissive. Clearly, I have a different opinion, but I think I've been consistently respectful albeit firm in stating it. Take a look, e.g., at 1exec1's examples of what I've said that he doesn't like; there's nothing there to complain about. It's certainly not like being called out for lying, hypocrisy, disruptive editing (he doesn't understand the term) and ignorance. And note that his response that it's not a personal attack to call me an ignorant lying hypocrite because he insists that's true. There is a line; I don't think I've ever crossed it; I think he has, time and again and he's completely unrepentant. As for my response to your remark, which I assume is a reference to my comment that "1exec1 would have a better chance selling his proposal if he took it one article at a time and actually listened and responded to objections", I stand by that as constructive: He would have a better chance selling his proposal if he went at it one article at a time and actually tried to incorporate objections as opposed to simply claiming that they've been answered and should go away. Consensus isn't about winning an argument; it's about incorporating different points of view in search of something we can agree on (even if to say, it wasn't my choice, but it's clear that was the consensus.) Msnicki (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. In that response to me, you implied he wasn't listening to you, which I think was rude. Then you called his arguments "silly," which I think was rude and dismissive, and called his proposal "dead," which is also dismissive. You wrote "1exec1 would have a better chance selling his proposal if he actually listened and responded to objections," which patronized him and dismissed the points he had made. Earlier in the thread you presented "you don't have a consensus" as an argument against the move proposal, which is specious and thus seems dismissive, and wrote "you're not helping yourself," again patronizing and dismissive. To me it seems the line you didn't cross is the one between rudeness and a personal attack. I'm glad you're sensitive about and careful not to make personal attacks, though it'll be easier to collaborate with you if you can focus on the subject of discussion instead of the other person's behavior, and act respectfully toward other people even when they don't treat you the same way. It certainly is challenging sometimes. --Pnm (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we try to be fair about context, please? I didn't call all his arguments silly, I said he was "making silly claims that concerns about notability or WP:OR aren't valid objections." He does make that claim that concerns about notability and OR are not valid objections and that is a silly claim on WP; notability and OR always matter here, even if you have to agree to disagree whether the guidelines are satisfied in a given instance. And what's specious about pointing out the lack of consensus as reason not to do the move? That's not rude at all; that's just how we work. (And were you rude to dismiss my view as specious?) When he questioned what I meant, I answered respectfully, conceding his right to a different opinion. While my comment about listening to and responding to comments might have been better expressed as pointing out the need to incorporate objections, not just argue they're wrong, it is only half the sentence; the other half explains what I mean, that he "has been throwing out accusations of lying and hypocrisy, questioning others' good faith". My remark that he wasn't helping himself is a response to his false claim that I'd engaged in disruptive editing and an implication that I hadn't offered any arguments at all. My response was reserved, not rude. Now, I admit I'm not a perfect person, but to tediously take me to task for insufficiently turning the other cheek after being called a lying hypocrite – and to do it with a word here and a word there out of context – seems harsh in my book. How well do you behave when people call you names? I think I was pretty restrained and surprisingly respectful, e.g., here, acknowledging and respecting that his opinion was different and suggesting we drop the stick. What are your standards here? I'm wondering who among us could pass. With your "specious" remark and your own tendency to be patronizing ("Seriously, both of you.") even without provocation, it doesn't sound like you could do it.
I think I did stay focused and I think you're grasping at straws to justify having jumped to a false assumption, that if 1exec1 was complaining about me that loudly, I must have done something to deserve it. I didn't deserve what I got from him and I didn't deserve what I got from you, either. Msnicki (talk) 02:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I just saw your edit, redacting your "seriously" remark. Thank you. I propose we agree that we've worked through any differences between us discussed here, both of us satisfied with each other's good faith and genuine efforts to treat others with respect. Msnicki (talk) 04:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. You were right, it was patronizing. Sorry for being aggressive and for taking "silly" out of context. I agree to assume good faith and approach the next situation with an open mind. --Pnm (talk) 04:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm OK, You're OK. :) Msnicki (talk) 04:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with List of The Nerdist Podcast episodes

I appreciate your assistance. I'm not sure we agree that the split should have been made, but now that I've acted boldly, I'm glad you have contributed, adding the splitting templates to talk, and correcting the infobox. As I have said elsewhere, I've never done a page creation I felt might one day see AfD. I can see why others may not agree to the inherent notability of the list page, but I think that even you felt such a splitting was preferential to the over-weighting of the material on the main page. As I said to another editor on talk, this splitting may have the effect of taking some of the ip mischief pressure off the main page and applying it to a slightly less visible space. I'm glad to watch and shepherd the list. I think that in time it might be a much better work and given the extended success of the podcast, might actually become FL-class stuff. Thanks again for your contributions and stewardship. BusterD (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. I think the split is a good compromise. Given that we were starting to discuss it, I don't see it as a content fork, and certainly a reasonable WP:BOLD. So far I'm unconvinced about the list's notability, and was posting about it on the talk page when you wrote me. FL quality is quite a goal! It'll need more content attributed to secondary sources to avoid original research problems. I was glad to collaborate on this. --Pnm (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: GNOME

Thanks =D this is my first year participating in Google Code-in, and updating the GNOME article seemed like a good first task. Pfjap.paco (talk) 04:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Design of Everyday Things

Hello! Your submission of The Design of Everyday Things at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Ningauble (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Amelioration pattern

Hi, I deprodded Amelioration pattern and added a reference I found in the ACM DL. I only quickly skimmed through it though, so I wouldn't mind if still want to send this to AfD after having taken a look at it. —Ruud 21:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I don't have access to the full text. Would you be willing to share the relevant pages? – Pnm (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The relevant paragraph:

An anti-pattern has two possible forms: it either ‘provides knowledge on how to go from a problem to a bad solution’ or shows ‘how to go from a bad solution to a good solution’ . The former will be referred to as a simple anti-pattern and the latter is commonly called an amelioration anti-pattern. If described properly, an anti-pattern also tells the designer why the bad solution looks attractive, why it turns out to be bad, and what positive patterns are applicable in its stead. Anti-patterns therefore concentrate on presenting negative solutions . Simple anti-patterns are thus not very useful to the designer, behaving as a mere example of what can go wrong; the amelioration pattern is constructive and useful to the designer since it shows how the bad solution can be refactored.

—Ruud 21:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Seems like a distinction worth covering. I'd like to add/merge the information to anti-pattern and redirect there. I'll do that if you don't object. --Pnm (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, sounds like a good idea. —Ruud 22:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for The Design of Everyday Things

On 12 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Design of Everyday Things, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Donald Norman rewrote his 1988 book The Design of Everyday Things after some industrial designers felt affronted by an earlier draft? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Design of Everyday Things.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

xxxterm

Why did You add place {{connected contributor}} to xxxterm's talk page? I'm not connected with xxxterm in no way. The WP:SELFCITE clearly permits using own reference without giving undue weight, which is clearly not an issue in case of 1:16 ratio. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

While the template message isn't perfect, citing oneself is a conflict of interest. You aren't giving your own source undue weight, but you're using it in an argument for notability – and you wrote it after it failed at Afd. In an open-source project the line between connected and unconnected is blurry, since anyone can volunteer to help with outreach. If the language of the template really bothers you, I'll write a new template which makes it clearer that you're connected with a major source used by the article. – Pnm (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Examining the edit history can reveal that the weight of this reference wasn't really undue. Furthermore, the source was published when the article was userified, so I was unable to properly request uninvolved article to add this reference. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, I agree you're not giving it undue weight. – Pnm (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, assuming that the relevance of this template to the references situation is a subject of implicit consensus on Misplaced Pages, I have no objections. Sorry for taking Your time. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no such consensus, and you sound upset about it, so I created a new template {{Citation by contributor}}. I wanted to point out that there is a conflict of interest in citing oneself, and that identifying such citations improves Misplaced Pages by helping both readers and other contributors evaluate them accordingly. I'm sorry you felt put off, because it was not my intention. – Pnm (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This new template is all OK to me. Thanks! And thanks for copy edit! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Your opinion is wanted at Talk:Xxxterm#Possible_neutrality_issues. Thanks. Johnathlon (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems that I was misbehaving towards You. I would like to apologize for that. I hope that we can properly collaborate in the future. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Christian75 (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for drafting the section on scope at WikiProject Open Access. I appreciate your good will for what I am doing and would support any involvement you saw fit to have in this. Even though I made this project, I am cautious about moving forward with this before assessing priorities and making good decisions about what is most important and what I can do with the resources which are available. If you want to talk by phone then feel free to email me and we can arrange something. I would be interested to hear what you think it is best to do to improve public access to information on this topic. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Software systems

Would you please do the upmerging on Category:Software systems per this discussion? I will delete the category after you do so.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

All set. Thanks. – Pnm (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Zango

Openess

Hi, I think a common term used for these various "Openness" projects is Open movements or "Open" movements, e.g. . I'd suggest that as the title of the WikiProject as it is all encompassing while "Open access" is not. What was your reason for choosing "Open methodologies"? (Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_7#Category:Libre). Is that term used as an umbrella? I agree Libre was less than ideal.

I think there should be a section in Openness on these movements, as plenty of sources associate them so it wouldn't be original research. For example, see Blue Obelisk.

This was daft: Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_6#Template:Openness. Clearly "openness" and "IP activism" are not one and the same. Some of user:Bluerasberry/template:openness should be used for Template:Open navbox. Fences&Windows 21:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Move revert

Removal of external links

Hi, I was trying to link my article to different Wiki pages that were relevant, to give people information about open source software, Linux ect. I'm sorry that because I linked it in quick succession it seemed like spam. I would like to replace the links and even make a few more but I will sure that they are relevant to the subject matter. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funckyfizz (talk • contribs) 00:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

In this edit you identified yourself as the author of the article you linked, which means you have a conflict of interest. Please know that Misplaced Pages is not here to promote your article.

That said, we need to determine whether that article meets Misplaced Pages's guidelines for reliable sources. It appears to me that it does not – there's no evidence that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If it were a reliable source, it could be used as a reference to cite some information in the article. After reading the guideline if you disagree, the reliable sources noticeboard is a good place to have a centralized discussion about that.

If it's not an RS, we can consider it as an external link. However, I think it meets #1 at WP:ELNO, sites normally to be avoided, because while you provide some interesting analysis, I don't consider it a unique resource beyond what any of these articles would contain if they became featured articles.

It's certainly not at all related to open-source political campaigns. – Pnm (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Happenings categories

I was immediately inclined to nominate the three categories you have just created, Category:Happenings by year , Category:Lists of happenings and Category:Happenings, for deletion. Could you try and explain to me in what significant way a happening differs from an event in the way the latter is already used in Misplaced Pages's category hierarchy? __meco (talk) 11:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

free healthcare software

Hello, I see you recently proposed a category move to free healthcare software. I'd like to propose a different name for this category, that would align better with existing article names (which is open-source). Can we discuss here? Category_talk:Free_healthcare_software? --Karl.brown (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Events

I did look at happenings and without an introduction, it seems vague like events. I also noticed that Category:Happenings was nominated for deletion. I think the close on Category:Events was reasonable given the comments, but it left the underlying problems there. I just got back from being away so I'll need some time to think about this. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject restructuring

Hi, I'm assessing a lot of WP:COMPSCI articles and ran into the restructured WPDATABASE template. My immediate concern is that at this time all articles tagged WPDATABASE are being included in WP:COMPSCI. I'd rather this didn't happen, what can be done about that? More generally, what is the status of the restructuring and what needs to be done next? Thanks, Ideogram (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)