| Revision as of 08:23, 29 July 2009 editQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits →Quackwatch edit warring: potentially violating 3RR← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:29, 29 July 2009 edit undoStmrlbs (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers3,156 edits →Quackwatch edit warring: Pot Kettle blackNext edit → | ||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
| Thanks for your note on my talk page. I never had the "pleasure" of punching cards, but when I got to college some of the "old timers" could still occasionally be seen with their stacks of punch cards. That's a nice collection of user boxes on your user page. I particularly like the one about there being 10 kinds of people. I see you have edited the ] article. That article says: "phylogenetic networks of human and non-human ABO alleles show that the A gene was the first to evolve". The ] article does not mention alleles and says "visualize evolutionary relationships between species or organisms", but a quick look in the literature finds "". This is mostly "greek" to me, but it seems like the ] article might need an update/expansion. --] (]) 07:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | Thanks for your note on my talk page. I never had the "pleasure" of punching cards, but when I got to college some of the "old timers" could still occasionally be seen with their stacks of punch cards. That's a nice collection of user boxes on your user page. I particularly like the one about there being 10 kinds of people. I see you have edited the ] article. That article says: "phylogenetic networks of human and non-human ABO alleles show that the A gene was the first to evolve". The ] article does not mention alleles and says "visualize evolutionary relationships between species or organisms", but a quick look in the literature finds "". This is mostly "greek" to me, but it seems like the ] article might need an update/expansion. --] (]) 07:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| : LOL - my userboxes! Well, I wish I could take credit, but there are a lot of funny people on[REDACTED] who like to create userboxes! The eventualist equation is mine, though. As far as the phylogenetic network article, I see what you mean. I've mostly looked at some articles on using ABO alleles to try to determine ABO blood type ancestry - specifically, what ABO blood type was the first, and what other blood types evolved from that. This is the basis for a lot of the popular diet theories (not just the blood type diet - although this is the most well known). However, phylgenetic network is about genetics (apparent from the name) and evolution, and the description doesn't quite capture that, does it? I would be ok making the description more up-to-date, but I think I will leave the specifics to experts in this area. The article you found is quite interesting.. not only for the development of a better way of recording a Phylogenetic network, but also for the reasons for the development of the Newark Format. Thanks for the link. --]|] 23:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC) | : LOL - my userboxes! Well, I wish I could take credit, but there are a lot of funny people on[REDACTED] who like to create userboxes! The eventualist equation is mine, though. As far as the phylogenetic network article, I see what you mean. I've mostly looked at some articles on using ABO alleles to try to determine ABO blood type ancestry - specifically, what ABO blood type was the first, and what other blood types evolved from that. This is the basis for a lot of the popular diet theories (not just the blood type diet - although this is the most well known). However, phylgenetic network is about genetics (apparent from the name) and evolution, and the description doesn't quite capture that, does it? I would be ok making the description more up-to-date, but I think I will leave the specifics to experts in this area. The article you found is quite interesting.. not only for the development of a better way of recording a Phylogenetic network, but also for the reasons for the development of the Newark Format. Thanks for the link. --]|] 23:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == Quackwatch edit warring == | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{#if:Quackwatch|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the ]. If you continue, '''you may be ] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If necessary, pursue ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 08:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:29, 29 July 2009
 |
|---|
| 15 January 2025 |
|
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
|
Archives | |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
search all delete discussions (work in progress)
this is still in the "test phase" (as far as setting up a template to use the new prefix capability added by rainman) try it out:
I have it set up right now just to search the deletion archives. Try searching for "Courtland County" or a user's name (that brings up a lot of different sections). comments? --stmrlbs|talk 07:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
a question of policy concerning WP:SOAP and google indexing of user pages
I have moved the post that I requested comment on to here: question of policy concerning WP:SOAP and google indexing of user pages (talk page of What Misplaced Pages is not). If you have comments, please add them there. Thanks. --stmrlbs|talk 02:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- If you feel like getting them on a technicality, they are not allowed to copy their blog to their user space unless they go through the process of licensing their blog under CC-BY-SA. —harej (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- This isn't about BullRangifer - his space just happened to be the one that I looked at because of the ANI, and his User pages happen to make a good example of what can happen with google indexing User pages.
- My question is why does Misplaced Pages allow indexing of User Pages? That policy is an open door to anyone that wants to use Misplaced Pages in this way. Plus it can lead to people thinking that the User articles they find on a subject are the Main Misplaced Pages articles.
- --stmrlbs|talk 19:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
moved RFC
Discussion moved to Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/User_page_indexing. Gigs (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
RFC
Hi, thanks for the link. I have seen this discussion previously in other places and I'm not sure I can add much more to it. I hear the arguments on both sides and to me it looks like it will be very hard to reach a consensus there. From a technical perspective using noindex for google will decrease the serchability of user pages because internal search uses only the data from the project, while google uses all of internet (e.g. blogs, homepages, etc..) as a repository of meta information and is more capable of connecting the user page with a person whose name is not necessarily even mentioned anywhere on wikipedia. e.g. a search for my real name on google will also find my sr.wiki homepage, although on sr.wiki my name is mentioned only in an obscure image caption (without linking to my userpage) and nowhere else. --rainman (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
"Also, to be fair, this part: "*Some collateral damage - some useful userspace content may not be found via external search engines anymore (unless it's mirrored)" - the mirror will not reflect the current status/changes in wikipedia. Plus, mirrors don't necessarily copy all of wikipedia. So, it is iffy about mirrors supplementing what is lost to being able to search[REDACTED] by SE"
- Not entirely sure what your point(s) is/are. Some mirrors will reflect changes after a shortish while; others hardly get updated. Most take the smaller dump which doesn't include userspace; some take userspace too (or random bits of it). Yes, it's clearly iffy - that's what I meant by "unless mirrored". Feel free to clarify the Collaborative Statement if you think necessary. cheers, Rd232 19:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
10
Thanks for your note on my talk page. I never had the "pleasure" of punching cards, but when I got to college some of the "old timers" could still occasionally be seen with their stacks of punch cards. That's a nice collection of user boxes on your user page. I particularly like the one about there being 10 kinds of people. I see you have edited the Blood type diet article. That article says: "phylogenetic networks of human and non-human ABO alleles show that the A gene was the first to evolve". The Phylogenetic network article does not mention alleles and says "visualize evolutionary relationships between species or organisms", but a quick look in the literature finds "Phylogenetic networks provide an explicit representation of the evolutionary relationships among sequences, genes, chromosomes, genomes, or species.". This is mostly "greek" to me, but it seems like the Phylogenetic network article might need an update/expansion. --JWSchmidt (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- LOL - my userboxes! Well, I wish I could take credit, but there are a lot of funny people on[REDACTED] who like to create userboxes! The eventualist equation is mine, though. As far as the phylogenetic network article, I see what you mean. I've mostly looked at some articles on using ABO alleles to try to determine ABO blood type ancestry - specifically, what ABO blood type was the first, and what other blood types evolved from that. This is the basis for a lot of the popular diet theories (not just the blood type diet - although this is the most well known). However, phylgenetic network is about genetics (apparent from the name) and evolution, and the description doesn't quite capture that, does it? I would be ok making the description more up-to-date, but I think I will leave the specifics to experts in this area. The article you found is quite interesting.. not only for the development of a better way of recording a Phylogenetic network, but also for the reasons for the development of the Newark Format. Thanks for the link. --stmrlbs|talk 23:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)