Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Philip J. Rayment (talk | contribs) at 15:41, 22 October 2004 (→Tram Photos (and more)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Note to visitors

I have decided to scale back substantially my involvement in the Misplaced Pages project, since I no longer believe it is capable in its present form of achieving its objectives. I have removed from my watchlist about 300 articles relating to historical and political subjects outside Australia. I will no longer edit any such articles or respond to requests to edit them or comment on them. My edits will be confined to Australian topics, ancient history and gay topics. When and if Misplaced Pages adopts a structure that protects serious editors and prevents fools and fanatics from sabotaging their work I will return to editing in other areas. I will be posting a longer piece giving my views on Misplaced Pages soon. Adam 14:24, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Several people have asked me since I posted the above message what it would take for me to return to active editing on the topics I have withdrawn from. My brief answer to this question is:

• Misplaced Pages must cease privileging process over product. The objective of Wikpedia must be to produce an encyclopaedia, not to provide an adventure playground for every crank, cultist and nutcase on the planet. In practice this mean that Misplaced Pages's structure must change so that articles may only be edited by registered Editors, who must be real identifiable people with IP-based email addresses and known names, and that Users (who may contribute new articles but not edit existing ones) must serve a probationary period before being allowed to become Editors.
• Misplaced Pages must cease privileging editors over readers. This means that there must be a process by which articles can be declared, subject to discussion and appeal, to be finished, after which they can only be edited further with the consent of a review panel of some kind. It also means that Talk pages should no longer be viewable by anyone except registered Editors, which will make the encyclopaedia fit for public viewing and remove the endless scope for grandstanding that the current structure allows.
• Wikpedia must decide what it stands for. Every other encyclopaedia ever published has had an editorial policy, and so should Misplaced Pages, and all articles should be judged by it. That editorial policy should be that Misplaced Pages stands for secular, rationalist, humanist and democratic values, and that all articles must reflect those values, interpreted very broadly. This means that people who want to impose religious, nationalist, irrationalist, cultist, fascist, racist, stalinist or other ideologies should be banned from participation. If they want to start their own encyclopaedias they are free to do so.

I don't suppose there is much chance of these policies being adopted. But unless and until they, or something like them, are adopted, Misplaced Pages will continue to fail to achieve its objectives, and to drive away people who after a period of initial enthusiasm come to see that writing for Misplaced Pages is a waste of time and effort. Adam 10:54, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I guess i am one of those fanatical trolls which are abusing wikipedia for few years and who irritated you to such degree that you decided to stay away from "some" topics. When today i have learned about that (what a fast guy i am) by reading your talk page, quite accidentally, i became sad. I had been finding a lot of pleasure with debating with you, despite your stubbornes and though you inability to change mind - sometimes - and treating me as 3-years old child were sometimes driving me nuts. I have learned a lot from those debates either directly or because I was forced to research. While rarely agreeing, i always recognised the enormous value you had added to articles by making them more neutral - and proffesional.

Therefore, i hope you will accept a simple "thank you" from anti-semitic, fanatical, and - what a scary thought - Polish troll. Thank you, Adam. Dziekuje. We definetely must find someone for your place. I hope you are forgiving massacring the English language and all the lost nerves.

Szopen 16:39, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I share your concerns and part of your disapointment, and I hope my personal attitude on some issues wasn't one of the factors that have lead to it. You are one of the best editors here, and the range of your contributions is indicative of the your great depth of knowledge in many, many diverse subjects. Go on with what you've been doing, that's my opinion. Etz Haim 15:15, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What he said. Just stick around, okay? Your contributions are just about unsurpassed as far as single individuals go. Even if you're leaving the moron handling to others, your articles are often fantastic. Ambi 15:36, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And your images too! They are great. ✏ Sverdrup 16:08, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mate i'm sorry it came to this but i understand completely - im tired of fighting either polish nationalists, Stalinists or a bunch of other ideological fanatics. Whatever happens i'm proud to call you a friend, if only on here. PMA 16:12, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is unfortunate, and I hope you will change your mind and return to editing topics outside Australia. While I have disagreed with some of your edits in the past, I think that overall, you provide a important counterpoint in Misplaced Pages that serves to balance against other POVs. Best of luck on what you will be editing, though. —Lowellian (talk)] 02:17, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

What a loss. I'd like to argue with you to stay, but I understand your reasons. I've felt this way myself. We have lost so many of our early and best contributors to Misplaced Pages, because our system of arbitration and mediation is flawed usually useless. Ever since Larry Sanger left, even the worst trolls have been welcomed here with open arms, while many good and productive users have been bogged down with vindicative arbitration proceedings, which only rarely produce results. The result is that many of our best contributors, including Larry, are no longer with us, and Adam Carr is now gone. Every loss like this is a huge blow to the project.

This is precisely why, on the Wiki-En discussion list, I was asking people to consider making Misplaced Pages a feeder for a more stable, formally reviewed Misplaced Pages, such as Nupedia. Without the promise of a stable place for our reviewed articles, all of our work is for nothing. No matter how well written an article is, and no matter what the consensus is, all it takes is one or two committed people with free time on their hands to damage and destory entire articles. If we want our work to endure, we need more stability and sensibility, and soon. RK 05:01, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments, which I appreciate. Etz Haim, none of my comments above refered to you. Adam 06:22, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I also hope that our little disagreement didn't upset to much as my remarks were meant in a friendly way. Waerth 08:37, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am sort of confused by the comment you placed in the edit on the election regarding me. It was fair enough not to have a statement written while the senate numbers are still being counted, as things can change slightly requring a whole new article. More confusing is the fact I believe you are accusing me of supporting the minor parties, judging by your manner. Do me a favour and don't accuse of that, it's offensive. Evolver of Borg 12:14, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't know why you presume I directly support Meg Lees. I support Lees on the same level I support Family First, that is that they are friendly to the Coalition, so I prefer her over the Greens or Democrats. You really should read people's profiles before making decisions. Reading my page you would find out that I'm pro-Coalition, but also not of voting age, and by your logic that probably makes me not worthwhile talking to. Congradulations on your party's victory in our electorate. Evolver of Borg 1:07, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

True. Good that's been clarified.

You thought the campaign was dirty? I wouldn't really call it dirty when there was next to no effect on the electorate, remembering that many of the pro-Liberal voters who voted for Danby previously because of his being Jewish have been shown to have stuck with him. It suprised me that the margin in Melbourne Ports wasn't reduced to 2.7%. Not that many pro-Liberal Jews obviously. Evolver of Borg 2:00, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. Also remembering that Southwick doesn't have the best reputation with the youth of the area, being a DJ, and a shit one at that. Evolver of Borg 2:37, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is really too bad - you are one of Misplaced Pages's most prolific and clear-headed editors. But obviously I understand. VeryVerily 05:16, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's a damn shame, Adam. I've only seen your work on the Australian topics, and am glad to hear you'll be still be editing them, but I'm sure your contributions elsewhere were of equally high quality. —Stormie 08:58, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with user:RK that Adam's leaving is very worrying and that something should be done to get him back and to prevent other good contributors from leaving too. Andries 11:08, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate these comments. The "something that should be done" is that Mr Wales or whoever else runs Misplaced Pages should be asked to take the suggestion made by RK above seriously, and to do something about it. Misplaced Pages will never become a real encyclopaedia until something like this is done, and serious editors cannot be expected to spend their time on a project whose objectives cannot be realised under its existing structures. Adam 13:03, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if you've subscribed to the mailing list, Adam, but the issue has come up there too. It'll be interesting to see if anything comes out of it. Ambi 13:07, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Requests for comment Shorne

A few of us are talking about doing a RfC regarding Shorne. Before we can do that we must pass this threshold:

"Before listing any user conduct dispute here, at least two people must try to resolve the same issue by talking with the person on his or her talk page or the talk pages involved in the dispute. The two users must document and certify their efforts when listing the dispute. If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be deleted."

If you feel that any issues exist with respect to his edits, please enter into a dialogue on User talk:Shorne and see how much progress we can make through negotiation. Fred Bauder 18:54, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

The policies you suggest on your user page

Hi Adam, bad luck about the election result, I know it's not one you would particularly enjoy. Anyway, I thought I'd write and tell you I support all three suggestions for change you have made on your user page. If we are ever to become a publishable encyclopedia, we will need to adopt policies and processes similar, if not identical, to those which you have suggested. I support you 100%. - Mark 13:26, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is a blow to Misplaced Pages

I'm sorry you feel you have to do this. Do you plan to at least put in your new Holocaust article? It would be a vast improvement, and you've done a lot of work on it. Jayjg 02:21, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your policies

I realise we haven't always seen eye-to-eye, and I may be somewhat anal in certain respects (especially with copyright and attribution), but I hope that you understand that I think you are an excellent editor. I found your article on Mark Latham particularly excellent, same with the 2004 farce election. That said, I can't agree with your policies. I believe that restricting Misplaced Pages will basically make it like any ordinary encyclopedia and POV will increase, not decrease! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:25, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bali bombing pic

Thanks for uploading Image:Ac.balibomb1.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) Thanks so much, – Quadell ] 12:47, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Better check the Aussie PM articles - someones brought in those ugly infoboxes again - i saw them on Harold Holt and Robert Menzies PMA 21:43, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Response to your opinion on what Misplaced Pages should be

I disagree with no. 3. Misplaced Pages has an editing policy: NPOV. Misplaced Pages is not here to promote values among people.

Also, there is the concept that articles are never finished and that one must always keep contributing. Though the CD version to me is what is something like a "final product".

I DO agree with the real identifiable users thing and I do agree with not letting anons edit.

That said, I don't like the idea of you leaving, even if we got into fights. WhisperToMe 00:34, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Regarding your insistence that Benjamin Pine was not a Governor of Western Australia: I have removed him from the list, but added a comment to the affect that he was appointed but never took office. However, this is a very reluctant compromise on my part. Both the WA government (see http://www.govhouse.wa.gov.au/wa_governors.htm) and The Constitution Centre of Western Australia (See http://www.ccentre.wa.gov.au/html/prems_govenors/governors.html) list Benjamin Pine as a bonafide Governor of Western Australia. Unless you've actually seen the Letters Patent by which he was appointed, you are on very shaky ground declaring that he was not a Governor of Western Australia in contradiction to these two parties. Drew Devereux 03:08, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) http://www.govhouse.wa.gov.au/wa_governors.htm

I agree that, logically, Pine can't have been Governor because he never took the Oath of Office. But the finer points of law are not always logical, and it seems that the WA Government consider him to have been a Governor. Presumably they know best. If there are other "ghost governors" then they are not recognised as Governors by the WA Government, whereas Pine is. Having said all that, I am satisfied with the current compromise if you are.

Thanks for the P.S., I get it now. Drew Devereux 03:48, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Puerto Rican Politics

Man I can't beleive we are losing you. :/ fcabals

Anyho, although I noticed that you don't want to edit any stuff outside of kangaroo land, I created some stubs about Puerto Rican politics which I sincerely know nothing about. These are:

• House of Representatives of Puerto Rico
• Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico
• Senate of Puerto Rico
• Puerto Rico General Elections of 2004

Every article has an extlk/source, but all of them are in Spanish. If you don't want to touch them, could you tell me to whom should I direct this? Is there some sort of WikiProject for this kind of stuff?

As always, thanks for all your help.

—Joseph | Talk 08:07, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

I know you've made comments about it, but I can't remember exactly. Did you think Shorne was a sockpuppet of Hanpuk, or just another idiot with similar views? Ambi 08:30, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I'm trying to do what I can in that respect, but I didn't want to make sockpuppet allegations unless you were relatively certain. Ambi 09:15, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If I may butt in here, I believe the account Hanpuk/Richardchilton/etc. is using right now is Ruy Lopez and that Shorne is someone else. Ruy Lopez is of course also active on the Cambodia (and so on) articles, though with less activity than Shorne. VeryVerily 10:00, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Adam. I saw your photograph Image:Ac.pollingday.jpg, and noticed that you wrote "released for general use" on the image description page. Does that mean you released it into the public domain, or that you release it under the GFDL? I'd like to have a specific license. Thanks and regards, ] 23:59, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Ditto for Image:Ac.ballotdraw.jpg. ] 00:01, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Ah. Than public domain. Thanks. ] 00:04, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - that's the one area that I've still to go through and fix, bust haven't had time yet. I'll go through and fix any errors later tonight. Ambi 07:28, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Parliament

No offence taken. To improve ease of reading, I think it might be appropriate to put the figures in a table, such as the following:

-- Emsworth 14:08, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WTF

I made no "abusive and polemical edits" (as you put it) at AIDS. Check the history. In my few, minor edits, I clarified facts, inserted helpful statistics and improved the article.

As to your suggestion that I leave Misplaced Pages, no thanks. I am happy with my contributions so far and I intend to contribute more in the future. If this is your idea of "not biting the newcomer", I'd hate to see you in a bad mood. --style 11:18, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

Ok, you are talking about Talk:AIDS. As I see it, I tried to be civil, despite past disagreements, but User:Raul654 just had to say that I "know nothing about science", with no provocation. If people insult me they should expect to be returned in kind, admin or not. --style 11:37, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

I don't think it's as bad as you think

I admit I'm really just a reader who's been drawn into contributing a few times. Things will always seem worse when you're close to the problem, so I'm not surprised you feel so strongly about it, and I can understand your point of view.

However, as I see it wikipedia is an amazing success. I base this on what some might think an unusual source: it's been used as reference material by people's "phone a friend" on "Who wants to be a Millionaire". That speaks bloody highly of it, in my opinion: people are confident enough in Misplaced Pages to risk tens of thousands, or perhaps even hundreds of thousands of dollars, on the factual accuracy of the articles it contains.

I have to ask if that isn't a sign of Misplaced Pages achieving its goals, what is? If someone came up to you and asked if you'd gamble a couple of times your yearly wage on the statements made by anonymous people over the internet, you'd probably laugh in their face. Yet people are willing to do that when it comes to wikipedia.

Don't lose sight of the fact that despite the internal troubles, the end product is something that on the face of it, sounds like it would be impossible to achieve. Since you're one of the people who has really made that happen, you have a right to be proud. Shane King 12:00, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Re your comments about Encyclopedia Britanica: I've not looked at Britanica since I was in high school, and I was probably a lot less discerning reader back then. I suspect if I read one now I'd find it biased in parts. Maybe not so much as wikipedia, I don't know, but what I mean to say is that I think all processes have the capacity to produce bias. I agree with you that some of the socio-political subjects have problems. I'm just not sure that amounts to perpetrating a fraud on the public. Maybe I'm just too cynical, but I expect everything I read to be biased.

I also think that your proposed system would probably be better at first, and then degrade over time to something worse than what we currently have in place, as the people in power (ie the editors) use their powers to ensure only people who support their views are allowed to become editors. In short, I think your system invites some kind of online gerrymandering. Shane King 23:37, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Remember: Nauru Legislative Elections

Hi Adam, I just wanted to remember you that on Saturday, elections to nauruan parliament will be held (we already talked about it). How about a notice on your website? I'll try to catch datas from those elections as much as possible, and then I'll send you them. Regards -- CdaMVvWgS 19:12, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Adam, the RFC has placed many restrictions on Herschel, and if he violates them, he can suffer the consequences. Shorne's got his RFA (Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Users Shorne and Fred Bauder). I'm not too sure if the RFA is going after Hanpuk yet. WhisperToMe 00:15, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Tram Photos (and more)

Adam, I've altered the captions in Trams in Melbourne (why did you alter the caption of the one that was already there?), but you might like to add in where they were taken. I think No. 3 (and possibly No. 2 also) is in Victoria Parade, but I'm not certain enough to say so.

Also, there is a problem with the photographs. Clicking on either of the first two shows an enlarged version of a different photograph. The third one works okay. I have no idea what the problem is here, so am unable to fix it.

On your opinions regarding Misplaced Pages, whilst I agree with you on anonymous people not making edits, I don't agree on most of the rest. But the thing that I disagree with most strongly is your bigoted (sorry for the strong word, but I feel that it's the appropriate word) view that wikipedia should adopt one particular worldview (humanism) to the exlusion of all others (e.g. Christian)!
Philip J. Rayment 00:51, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In response to your comments on my talk page:

• The problem with the tram pictures seems to be something to do with updating. For the first picture, I was still seeing the old picture that yours replaced. When I clicked through, I got your new picture. For the second picture, however, I saw your new picture and clicking through gave me the old one! It now seems to be working okay for me, but now I'll have to go back and change the captions! As they are (nearly) all at the same place, I won't include the location in the captions.
• I notice that Misplaced Pages doesn't handle pictures properly in its history. Showing the Tram page as it was before you uploaded the new pictures still gives the new pictures, but with the old captions. Thus your picture of an A class tram shows up in the section about W-class trams, saying that it is a W class! (See )
• Regarding "humanist", perhaps it was your use of the word in the same phrase as "secular" and "rationalist" that misled me. Your statement seemed to be very much one of excluding a Christian (for example) worldview. I wouldn't expect Misplaced Pages to state (as a matter of fact) that the world was created in seven days. But then neither would I expect it to state (as a matter of fact) that the universe was billions of years old and commenced from the "Big Bang", as they are also ideas deriving from particular worldviews (in this case, secular/secular humanist/agnostic/atheistic/etc. worldviews).
• By the way, just out of curiosity, why did you create my user page?

Philip J. Rayment 03:59, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

<<The statement "The universe is billions of years old and was created at the Big Bang" is a statement of science, based on empirical observation interpreted through reason>>
Rather, the statement is an interpretation of empirical evidence made in the context of a particular worldview, a worldview that doesn't allow for a young, created universe. Creationists take the same evidence and interpret it differently, because they have a different worldview. Empirical science requires observation and repeatability, neither of which are possible for past events. So all such explanations about the past are of necessity interpretations of the evidence, and applying the label 'scientific' to them is therefore dubious at best. Philip J. Rayment 15:41, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

that line about british aristocrats was a sentence to qualify the previous sentence. Xtra 09:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)