Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:08, 28 January 2012

This is Aoidh's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your comment by inserting four tildes (~~~~) at the end of the comment. Please indent your posts with a colon : if replying to an existing topic (or two colons :: if replying to a reply, and so on). For oversight requests please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Talk page archives (Auto-archiving period: 14 days ) 2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017 • 2018 • 2019 • 2020 • 2021 • 2022 • 2023 • 2024

Archives

2011Template:•w2012

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Steve Jobs

Hi SudoGhost,

thank you for your message. Did you cancel my entry (Steve Jobs) from the list of "Buddhist practitioners notable in other fields" because I didn't sign my name on the edit page and didn't fill in the edit summary field or because you thought it was wrong to add him?

Sorry to annoy you, but I am new to Misplaced Pages (at least on the contributing side).

Thanks for your help! - Cobra Venom (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, welcome to Misplaced Pages. :) The reason I reverted the edit is because the reliable sources on theSteve Jobs article say that he was influenced by Buddhism, but does not go so far as to say that he himself was a Buddhist. Because of that distinction, it isn't really appropriate to add him as a "Buddhist practitioner" without a reliable source saying he is, as per the editing guideline at List of Buddhists (the WP:BLPCAT policy requires that the person identify themselves as belonging to this religious category, which applies to the recently deceased). - SudoGhost 21:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I haven't yet read his official biography (by Walter Isaacson), but I know his wedding ceremony was officiated by Kobun Chino Otogawa, a Zen Buddhist monk and on his page is written "Religion: Buddhist". I will add him on the list if I'll have a reliable source (official biography, that is) to prove he really was a Buddhist. - Cobra Venom (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Changes to 2010 statistics (World's busiest airports)

Dear SudoGhost, how are you? I want to ask one question. How we can deal with statistics for 2010? You can remember that since 2008 we are publishing not 30, but 50 busiest airports. But in 2010 we didn't do that, because ACI hadn't published the official press release and ATW online also hand't. In this case, how we can deal with number of airports? Should we find other sources, where 50 airports is shown or should it remain again in 30? How we can solve it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisher1990 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I found statistics made by New York Airport Authorities. Their PDF-attachment also contains TOP50 busiest airports for 2010. WIth links to ACI. If you want, I can e-mail you. Please, provide me your e-mail address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisher1990 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Using multiple figures and translating them into rankings is WP:SYNTH, which is not allowed. If a reliable source doesn't specifically say that Airport XYZ is ranked #31, then the article cannot say it either. - SudoGhost 13:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your assertion that using figures published elsewhere on the web and including them in the rankings is WP:SYNTH. I was frustrated by not having more than 30 airports listed for 2010, when 50 had been listed for 2008-09, so I did rather painstaking research to determine the next 20 in line (and I am certain that my research was accurate.) Unfortunately, two airports in the 40's published only fiscal-year, not calendar-year figures, so I excluded them, which meant I could include only the next 10 busiest airports in 2010 (31-40). This is not WP:SYNTH, which implies a fallacious or unsupportable argument. I did cite multiple verifiable sources, but I did so correctly, and noted in the intro to the 2010 list that I had done so. Of course, I would prefer that you restore my edits, which I absolutely stand behind, but, at the least, do not make the assertion that they were any way sloppy or inaccurate, because they were not. Donleitz (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Well that's exactly the point. You compiled a list of 20 additional figures, but there's no proof that these are the only additional figures. Just because Airport X is next in line with what you've gathered, that does not mean that there is not an Airport Y in existence that has a higher number, that you did not have the information for. These two airports you mentioned, since they did not publish figures you were able to find, they do not factor in? Unless you have a reliable source that specifically says that a certain airport has a certain ranking, you cannot conclude that the figures you compiled translate into rankings. As for "sloppy or inaccurate", you're reading into something that isn't there and was not implied. To piecemeal sources to create an additional meaning from those sources is synthesis. This is not to say it is "sloppy or inaccurate", but that it is not allowed on Misplaced Pages articles. - SudoGhost 22:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Fedora could use expertise

Hey, how about you zero in on the reappearance, of the Michael Jackson fan who you evidently don't consider a vandal. I could use some help over there.--Djathinkimacowboy 06:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears to been resolved, however, you are correct that I do not consider that vandalism. If it doesn't fall under one of the criteria at WP:VANDTYPES, it isn't vandalism under Misplaced Pages's definition. A good-faith edit to add content, although unsourced, is not vandalism. - SudoGhost 22:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear, SudoGhost

Hi, SudoGhost

here is my reply to your kind message. After then, same IPuser re-started irrational reversion again. He/she always pretend to discuss after every reversion. However, his/her incredible discussion written in almost unreadable English, lacks reliable sources. In my eyes, it seems sabotage against normal article editing, or purely vandalism. In this case, what is better way for me ? I expect your kindly advice... --Clusternote (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a content dispute to me. Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but I don't see anything that falls under WP:VANDTYPES. - SudoGhost 13:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Ravenloft links

Hello! I have placed a question concerning your last edit of Ravenloft here. Maybe you would like to give your opinion? Thanks. Daranios (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I've responded on the article's talk page. Thanks. - SudoGhost 10:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

"Undue"

Hi! About this edit

This is NOT an undue emphasis on the school. Here are reasons why:

• 1. The school is located in an unincorporated area. The nearest associated city is actually in DeKalb County. So the school is best associated with the county itself
  • When listing schools in a county article, put more emphasis on schools in unincorporated areas.
• 2. Outerlying suburban counties of major metropolitan areas typically have few private schools. Listing every one of them would not be "undue"
• 3. Even though it's not a high school, it's been documented so extensively by the media, that it's clearly notable, and is more notable than any other private schools in the county

Now I would like for it to be added back Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• If you have no objections, may I add it back? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Since it was a few days, with no response, I decided to add it back. Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV? I think you meant WP:NOR, no?

This is regarding your Dublin Dr Pepper revert. No? I figure the papers today (12th) will be the references we need. Remains to be seen, I suppose. - Denimadept (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I meant WP:NPOV. It was clear what the IP thought of the situation when they made they edit, and if readers are easily able to tell an editor's position on something, it isn't written with a neutral point-of-view. I've reworded it to reflect what is in the source given. - SudoGhost 09:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

That works. - Denimadept (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

McRapperson being notable

Hi buddy,

Please check reference 1 in Rappy McRapperson. A news paper article, even with the creator of the Captain Underpants series, saying he made the theme song. This, according to WP:MUSIC, according to number 10 of "Musicians", means he is notable. If a newspaper article isn't reliable enough, you can always personally pop open an episode of the show, and watch the credits; where it will say "Joshua Katz" as the person who made the theme song and music for the show.

According to WP:MUSIC, this means he's notable. If you disagree, I am sorry for your personal opinion; but it clearly says right there that it means he's notable.

^_________^

HollidayMasterofMystery (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

As there is an ongoing AfD, I would request you to post this piece of information over there, rather than on the talk page of another editor. Doing so allows your opinion to be considered during the debate. Thank you. ZZArch  08:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

Thank you for your kind welcome. Hope you are well. Namu-myoho-renge-kyo. - Steve Milburn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Milburn (talk • contribs) 13:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to shut down WP Geographic Coordinates & ban coordinates on[REDACTED] articles

This means you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Removing my cited facts from Dublin Dr Pepper

Hi,

I am well aware of the[REDACTED] guidelines, especially in neutrality. I have edited in the past with no problem. The statements I added to the article were all cited quotes from two different online news stories. I will find the articles again and re-edit the page. RyanLSumner (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)RyanLSumner

Cited is not the same as neutral, and the edit was not completely reflected in the sources given. For example, the MSN source in your edit does not in any way reflect the information you cited it with, save for a comment below the article itself. Please discuss on the articles talk page before you attempt to reinsert the material into the article. Thank you. - SudoGhost 11:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Parabola GNU/Linux

As you will probably have seen by now this AFD has closed as "no consensus", not on the DistroWatch ref, but on the FSF listing. That is an interesting outcome and will have implications for other articles in the future, such as gNewSense and so on. Now that this rather heated debate is done I did want to say that I thought you did a great job in calmly managing this rather complex discussion, it was good working with you on it. - Ahunt (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I apparently tend to ramble, and I didn't notice it until I re-read through that AfD. Although I am of the opinion that DistroWatch is not a reliable source, I do think that before anyone actually acts on that or creates an AfD based on that alone, that perhaps a consensus should be established that concerns only that subject, perhaps at WP:LINUX or somewhere appropriate. - SudoGhost 19:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That is probably not a bad idea, perhaps the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is the place to bring it up. The closing admin was of the opinion that while DW can be cited as a ref, it does not confer notability to a subject just by having a page, because of their sales angle on those listings. As you can tell during the course of the AFD you managed to convince me of that, too! In reading over the AFD text I wouldn't say you were rambling. I thought you made good, thorough and convincing arguments and on top of that were very civil throughout as well, all of which is commendable. - Ahunt (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I do appreciate the kind words, thank you. - SudoGhost 05:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Calabe1992 03:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit war at GNU General Public License

I see that you posted an edit war warning at User talk:Jxself. However, you seem to have overlooked the fact that you have actually made more reverts there than that editor. You are right in saying that, whatever the merits of "GNU?Linux", "Linux" is the common name. However, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring is, in essence, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you are convinced you are right". JamesBWatson (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

In the past 24 hours, I have made 2 reverts on that article. I am not "edit warring because I'm right", I'm restoring the consensus of WP:LINUX, the references in the article itself, and WP:COMMONNAME, in conjunction with the discussion that took place on the talk page. I'm not aware of any policy that says that consensus and discussion can be overridden by a single editor whose only two edits have been to ignore that consensus without any attempt at discussion, and even if there was, that does not seem constructive in any way. However, please don't take that as an excuse for edit warring; I have no intention to edit the article any further today. - SudoGhost 20:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually I count three. I don't understand how you're "restoring" anything, though, given that it looks like the article about the GNU General Public License has consistently used GNU/Linux in the past. Any discussion in the Linux article is about that article, certainly not for all of Misplaced Pages. One of the reasons that it was accepted on that particular article is because that article includes information on GNU history, and the naming controversy, but that's hardly a warrant to go around and change existing uses of GNU/Linux to Linux. Misplaced Pages acknowledges the naming controversy and so it's inappropriate to be trying to standardize. Jxself (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC).

User:Jxself: Your two edits in question 1 and 2 are mostly to change the titles of cited articles to include the words "GNU/Linux" when the original cited author of those references did not title his article that way. For instance both those edits change David A. Wheeler's article title from GPL, BSD, and NetBSD - why the GPL rocketed Linux to success to "GPL, BSD, and NetBSD - why the GPL rocketed GNU/Linux to success" and also changed Wheeler's Estimating Linux's Size to "Estimating GNU/Linux's Size". This is not a controversy or a content dispute. Changing the name of cited refs is plain vandalism. If you continue to do that you will be blocked. - Ahunt (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Ahunt: I was only returning them to what they said to begin with prior to User:SudoGhost going through the article and performing a mass find-and-replace of all GNU/Linux references to simply "Linux". Even though the cited refs are themselves incorrect for not using the GNU/Linux name I can try to be more careful in the future. However, but not all of the changes made by User:SudoGhost fall into the category you describe so I still stand by what I said above: Misplaced Pages acknowledges the naming controversy and so it's inappropriate to be trying to standardize and respectfully request that the changes from GNU/Linux to Linux (that are not part of cited refs) are returned to the state they were in prior to editing. Jxself (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The number of reversions made in the last 24-hours was two, not three. I assume the third diff you're looking at is this one, which is adding a reference, not hitting 'undo'. With that said, there isn't a single instance of "GNU/Linux" that was in use in that article that had any relation to the article GNU/Linux naming controversy, so the fact that this article exists is irrelevant, and to assume that the uses of Linux in the article are specifically referring only to Linux distributions that use GNU tools despite the fact that the references don't support this assertion this would be inappropriate, at best. This is of course in addition to the fact that Misplaced Pages uses the common name, not necessarily the "correct" name. - SudoGhost 05:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)