Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:57, 26 February 2007

Welcome

Hello, ElinorD, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! KillerChihuahua 21:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

When editing an article on Misplaced Pages there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. KillerChihuahua 21:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Your message

I have replied on my talk page (yes, discussion page!) KillerChihuahua 00:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Popcornmaker.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Popcornmaker.jpg. Misplaced Pages gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Misplaced Pages, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 22:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose there's not much point in replying to a bot, but just in case any human is reading my page:

Sorry about the no tag. I won't pretend that I didn't see that field. I found the tags confusing, so ignored them. I took the photo this morning, with the intention of giving the copyright to Misplaced Pages. I don't want to keep it for myself. I have looked at the links in the message above, and am puzzled by the difference between "free licence" and "public domain". Obviously, I should have selected one of those, but which one? Anyway, I have asked the question at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions, as suggested by the bot, so I'm sure that somebody will help me soon. ElinorD 23:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Images

Hi. I left you a welcome message at commons:User talk:ElinorD with links that should help you find your way around there. You may also want to read commons:Commons:Derivative works if you will be taking pictures of figurines. I'm afraid that I cannot be of much help with your login difficulties -- I cannot explain why you're having the difficulties you've described. There's no need to be concerned about "uploading too much"; serving image files can be expensive, but storing them isn't. Use the exact same "wikicode" to add an image to an article regardless of whether it is hosted at Commons or locally. Finally, remember to be bold in updating pages. If your image edit doesn't improve an article, someone else will just remove it. You can browse through Misplaced Pages:Featured articles to get a sense of what some community norms are for the number of images in an article. Jkelly 22:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about "trouble". Copyright and licensing are tricky. I'm afraid that I don't know much about figurines. I have edited Image:Hummel_Christmas_Tree_Ornament.JPG so that it now has appropriate licensing information. That image shouldn't go on Commons, because there are licensing complications involved that we don't want there. You can upload your photographs of figurines here at en: and use the {{statue}} template. All of that said, when did Fontanini die? If he or she died more than seventy years ago, we don't need to worry. Or is it the name of a company? Incidentally, our "article" at Fontanini is... something of a embarassment. Since you seem to be interested in figurines, perhaps you could fix it? Jkelly 23:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Martin Luther reverts

Thanks for your help with this. User has been blocked for 3 hours; I wish it was more. Keesiewonder 23:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It's useful to know of that page. I'll add it to my watchlist so that I can find it easily in future. I've done a fair amount of reverting vandalism, but haven't reported it. ElinorD 23:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I've only known about that page for about a week myself. It is time consuming to post warnings on user's pages, but, it is required, I think, before they can be blocked. What tools do you use to monitor vandalism? I've tried some available off of WP, but have not been impressed by them. Keesiewonder 23:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't use any tools. There's an "undo" option when I look at the vandal's last edit. If there are several versions that need to be undone, I open the last good edit in the history, and save that one. I have warned users once or twice, or rather, asked them to stop vandalising. I see that the page you linked to links to another page that gives various templates for warning people. I must take a closer look at them. ElinorD 23:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Pesky vandals

Thanks. To answer the question that the vandals were interrupting, you might want to read de minimis. We tend to err on the conservative side of the derivative work question. You can find people willing to opine at either Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions or at commons:Commons talk:Derivative works. User:Lupo is a good resource, as well. Jkelly 01:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed the one here. That's a lot of deletion requests to do at Commons, so I'll tackle that later. Jkelly 03:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Night

Hi Elinor, thank you for your kind comments about Night. I'll take a look at the Shlomo/Chlomo thing. :-) SlimVirgin 10:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The invisible notes are indeed useful, especially for barking out orders to future editors. :-D SlimVirgin 17:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thx, but thinx..

Thank you 4 the logical analysis of how Calton acted out in public.

However, I want to point out that while Cal is not always wrong, it is not right that you believe him at face value about his claim that the Gazette link is bad. IS it bad? WHY? Where's the proof? How is THIs link any different or any worse than other links? you need to think critically. He MIGHT BE right, but we need to make sure: Many 'blogs' are used as both sources for news items ANd as opinions and advocacy links. (I don't think the Gazette is a blog, but even if it were, I say this is no big cause for concern.)

Also, don't get scared and run off; I don't much have time to edit in this wiki, so we need all types of people to step up to the plate and swing the bat -you included!

Lastly, while I am not the last word on the Schiavo matter, I not only have first-hand knowledge, I also came closer than any other person to saving her; i narrowly lost my bid before our state's high court to save Terri, incredible when you consider I am both poor, not connected, and not a lawyer or immediate family member of Terri. This is a matter of record in the courts and elsewhere. Thus, I have some insight on the matter.

Thx, but plz 'THINX' before taking the word of another, such as Cal, without proof. --GordonWatts 03:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Gordon. I certainly didn't intend my posts to be seen as an "analysis of how Calton acted out in public". I simply pointed out that his accusation that you were lying and trying to "sneak in" something seemed unfair. (I was actually more interested in discussing the issue of whether or not we should report Nurse Iyer's claims.) It would probably be wiser to drop it now, as I don't think you'll convince him. But, since he has objected to you calling him "Cal", I'm sure it would help if you made the effort to use his full name. I wouldn't like people calling me Ellie, and none of my friends do.

As regards taking his word for it, I know nothing about the paper you want to link to, and I take Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines seriously, so I'd be quite cautious about linking to sites that other editors disagree with. If lots of people think the source is reliable, and one editor disagrees, then you'd be on stronger ground. Anyway, as I've said on the talk page, I'm not sure how much I want to be involved in that article. I'll keep it on my watchlist for the moment, though. ElinorD 13:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, it's not a question of believing that the Gazette is bad. I think that "reliable" on Misplaced Pages means something more than a private individual saying "Can I believe this source?" The question is, is it acceptable according to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources? If it isn't, then even if what it says is true, I don't think we can use it. I'm still reading and rereading a lot of the policy pages at the moment. ElinorD 14:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your review; I am not an expert on what makes a reliable source, but my gut feeling says to trust most or all of what that papers publishes, even if it is not on par with the New York Times; however, there are "times" when the NY Times or the LA Times might either publish a falsehood (rare but occasionally happens), or, more likely, publish nothing on a given subject (very common), so alternate news sources are very necessary -and that a "big" newspaper does not do a story is no certain proof a news item is “un-newsworthy” of Misplaced Pages, but that is what would happen if we are convinced to not use a source by fellow-editors. (In other words, if we are forced to not use certain sources, then we would be unable to list certain news items -since we must cite our sources.) Now, I'm not saying to use small sources every chance we get -only when such as the NY Times miss the news item -and then only if the smaller news source seems generally reliable -not real complicated, but it can be very divisive. We need to "cite our source," not run from the matter.--GordonWatts 11:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for reverting vandalism to my user page! —Wknight94 (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Your note

You're welcome, and yes, without phrases like "scatalogically challenged," it does seem a little duller. :-) I don't disagree with you about the PhD thing, by the way; I'd just like to see better sources used than the Sun. SlimVirgin 00:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

input sought

In a message to several recent editors of Schiavo-related pages, I write that: Input is sought here: Talk:Government_involvement_in_the_Terri_Schiavo_case#Edit_War_between_me_and_User:Calton.

--GordonWatts 15:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Since many points were raised in the schiavo-link dispute, it might be hard for you to see the gem, so I wanted to highlight that point in advance of you looking for a needle in a haystack:

If the arguments for verifiablilty and reliability are used as you suggest, then why don't we remove ALL those Terri's Fight and Terri's Blog links and any link to something that is not, say, the NY Times? We see LOTS of links to blogs and smaller web-papers on wikipedia, and we don't remove all them. (Or, should we?)

Can you see where I'm going? If you want to critique the links to my paper, then you should critique those links even more, and you can see there are lots of them; Also, as I stated, I am not a "Jonny 1 Note" paper, publishing on just the Schiavo matter, so my paper is indeed credible as a news source. I feel that I am more credible than those blogs being used (and they're not bad links; Both pro-life AND pro-euthanasia blogs are routinely used as opinion links, and rightly so, I think.)

My main beef with "the process," as you call it is this: The only reason MY newspaper is under the microscope is because I'm an editor here at wikipedia, and people don't want to take the time to look at other links. But if you are really fair, you will see that my paper, while not as "credible" as, say, thr NY Times, stands on equal -or higher -ground than many other links used as sources, and thus lesser treatment is merely a convolution and perversion of wilipedia policy, whichis to say "unfair, or bitter" editing by those who edit to attack. Now, if you can't find any other links that are as "small" as my paper, then you have a good case to reject "my" paper as too small, too unreliable, not credible, etc. See, I could be wrong.--GordonWatts 22:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Including text of Creed in Christianity article

Hi, regading the vote on Christianity, I thought your possition was that you could live with the removal with the box? If so, you should also add a vote like the other editor did under that category too, saying, "Could live with it"--unless you've changed your mind. Thanks.Giovanni33 02:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

But when I say I "can live with it", it doesn't mean I want it. If the choice is between X and Y, and I hope that the result will be X and that it will not be Y, why on earth would I vote for Y as well, and increase the number of votes it gets? It's not as if there are ten options, and I'm voting for the two I like best. "I can live with it" means that I won't commit suicide, I won't become ill, I won't lose my temper, I won't edit war, and I won't leave Misplaced Pages if I don't get my own way. I presume that if the text is kept, you won't commit suicide, etc. But I wouldn't expect you to vote for keeping it as well. ElinorD 02:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that means you can live with it. That is what it means. You are willing to accept that as a solution instead of a silly edit war over it. I noticed you did not edit war over it. So, to get a better picture of the spectrum of opinion, I'd say your vote should be as it is (yes to keep), but then under No with box, add your name with the "could live with." Consensus doesn't mean agreement, its reallly means agree not to edit war over it. This doesnt make any less clear where you stand, but allows one to see where everyone stands (strongly oppose/accept, or can live with it but oppose, etc).Giovanni33 03:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it is that Nigel's double vote means that although he hopes the result will be option 1 rather than option 2, option 2 now has eight "votes" instead of seven. If you add your name to option 1 with "could live with", there will be five votes for option 1. Would you be prepared to do that? I think my behaviour shows that I'm not going to edit war over it. I see no need to vote for the result that I'm hoping we will not get, just to show that I can live with it. ElinorD 03:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your signature

Hi Elinor, thanks for your note, and you're welcome regarding Gillian McKeith. As for your signature, the way to get it without color is to go to your preferences, and enter ] ] into the box for the signature, then check the box for "raw signature". If you want the word "talk" to be in a different color (in the following example, purple) or superscripted, you would enter ] ^{<font color="Purple">]</font>}

I hope this helps. I also hope it works. :-) SlimVirgin 10:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've tried it out, and it seems to work very nicely. Thank you. ElinorD (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! (McKeith)

Thank you for your kind words! Unfortunately, it will only make my[REDACTED] addiction harder to cure! :D I used to just edit articles, and lately I've been dealing with people, which is even more fun! But the funniest thing though, and I can't get over it, is that there are only skeptics on that page, and the more moderate skeptics have been labeled all sorts of things. Seriously, I have never been so accused of POV pushing before, and I'm an atheist who edits God. Unbelievable! :) --Merzul 01:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

My spatially infamous ref tags

Hi Elinor, you're right that most editors write their ref tags directly after the punctuation with no space. I don't like doing that, because it's not what publishers do (so far as I can tell), so I don't know why we should. It doesn't look too bad when it comes after a punctuation mark, like this, because the comma provides a space between the last word and the tag, but when a ref tag is placed directly after a word, as with the example here, it looks very crushed, in my view. The problem seems to lie with the square brackets; without them, there would be more space. Of course, it's possible that my browser is making me see things differently (Firefox for Mac) from editors who use Windows.

Anyway, that's why I do it and that's why I made that edit, because my memory is that there was no agreement when the tags were introduced that there should or shouldn't be a space; feel free to revert me if you disagree. My tags-with-a-space are forever being reverted, so I don't fight over it; I just continue on my lonely, but correct, way. :-) SlimVirgin 21:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Christianity (Nicene Creed)

I noticed you took part in the straw poll. Please visit the talk page to engage in the discussion, so we may build consensus. Vassyana 00:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo 04:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Hi, just wanted to let you know that your edits to the diarrhea article violate Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy. Thanks and feel free to leave a message on my talk page. 24.175.111.135 21:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you are in error. Please feel free to discuss your vanishingly small viewpoint on Talk:Diarrhea to attempt to gain consensus. KillerChihuahua 21:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Just wanted to say how nice it is to have your input on the Christianity page. What we need is calm balanced voices of all points of view when dealing with these emotive subjects, so it's good to have you around. Just as a heads up - there is quite a bit of history of antagonism between Giovanni33 and some others so don't be suprised if people seem to over react sometimes. The details are quite boring and all done with now - but in the history of his talk page if you are at all interested. Sophia 16:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, Sophia. I've appreciated your posts on the Christianity talk page as well, although it does seem that our POVs may be very far apart! For the moment, I don't think I'll look in any histories, though I might later, if I get curious. Things got a bit heated at the Terri Schiavo talk page, and someone advised me to read the archives. They didn't make pleasant reading! Anyway, it's nice to see that things have calmed down at Christianity. ElinorD (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

My gender and my userpage

Hi, Elinor. Thanks for your note. No problem about the gender. My signature actually used to look like this: AnnH ♫, but I changed it recently. I had read some complaints (not directed at me) about people whose signatures were different from their username, as it can be confusing if you're looking at a printout of a page, and then try to search for that user at Misplaced Pages. You'll still see other users referring to me as Ann. Regarding my userpage, thanks for telling me. Most of the computers I use only have Internet Explorer, and it certainly looks fine in that. However, I do have access to a computer with Firefox, and will take a look next time I'm on that computer. By the way, my friend Str1977 copied his userpage from mine, with some modifications. Does his look wrong as well? Thanks for your comments at the Christianity talk page. Don't let the recent unpleasantness there scare you off. We all usually get on reasonably well together. I see you've been active at Gillian McKeith. I have it on my watchlist because it was being vandalized quite a lot a few months ago. You might also be interested in Patrick Holford. Cheers. Musical Linguist 12:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Howdy...I see you're a newer editor, and I wanted to be the first to give you a barnstar for your contributions. I'm sure you'll get many others. Keep up the good work! MONGO 17:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

MJ

Hi, I left a note at WP:AN/I, but just in case you don't see it, HarveyCarter has created another account. See Special:Contributions/ElvisIsTheOnlyKing. It's almost certainly HarveyCarter himself. Compare these two posts. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've already dealt w/. -- FayssalF - 18:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Our edits crossed (yours to AN/I, mine to your talk page). ElinorD (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah :) Cheers. -- FayssalF - 18:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Licensing

That notice applies to my contributions of text. There was a time when people were placing all sorts of different notices on their userpages about how they license their writing, although this seems to have died down now. Such alternative licensing of text is somewhat problematic, as it could, if such licensing statements were valid (I'm not sure that they are), result in someone claiming that their derivative of a GFDL article was somehow under a different license than the GFDL (and therefore potentially infringing), or that their derivative of a public domain text was under the GFDL (not infringement, but disputable). That's complicated. I dual-license any original photography or design under both the GFDL and CC-BY-SA licenses. I'm actually not very happy with either license when it comes to images, for quite different reasons, but I want viral licensing (so someone cannot make an unfree derivative of my work) and do not know of any better options. Jkelly 18:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

My request for adminship has closed successfully (79/0/1), so it appears that I am now an administrator. Thanks very much for your vote of confidence. If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to let me know. IrishGuy 03:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Per this admin's request, I am notifying you of WP:RFAR action

Per this admin's request, I am notifying you of WP:RFAR action.

Even though I am not seeking the action against you, nonethheless, you are a party, and rules require that I notify you. Observe:

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#GordonWatts

--GordonWatts 07:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

1. x
2. Y