Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:54, 23 December 2010

Status: Unknown

Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following: Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page. Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end. Please specify a descriptive subject or headline for a new topic and separate subtopics by ===heading=== lines, if needed. Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply. ⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

This is Renamed user 5695569576f6b340's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 5 days

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Couto Misto

I'm afraid there are hardly any references at all in English for the Couto Misto (just a couple of quotes in Google Books). I'm trying to put together a paper in English on this subject (to be published elsewhere), and at the same time, sharing what I find in Misplaced Pages. The case of the Couto should certainly be better known. Thank you for your encouragement. Cgnk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.85.141.52 (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy clarification

Hi Gnowor. Thanks for all your anti-vandalism work -- it is appreciated. I just wanted to clarify that WP:G7 speedy deletion doesn't apply to the blanking of userspace pages. I declined your speedy request here. Good luck with your editing. Cheers. — CactusWriter 20:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I actually refreshed that page and saw my speedy was gone, anticipated this being the response, and doublechecked the speedy criteria. This was followed by a verbal "Whoops." Thanks for taking a look at my error. The reason for the delete request was actually less about the blank page and more about the page history which appeared to be blatant advertising. That advertising was brought to my attention by the edits of Gauchowest contribs here. All edits by Gaucho seem to be linkspam to none other than.... www.spasofamerica.com. Thought about posting a block request for Spas based on username-name of company violation, or on Gaucho, but another admin just posted a last warning for link spam on Gaucho. More than you wanted to hear I'm sure. Guess I just like to think I'm a thinking-man's huggler.--Gnowor_C 20:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I had also looked at the history -- and noted the username might be improper as a company or spam account. But the last edits were in April 2007, so I let it ride. Gauchowest edits will remain under scrutiny, of course. Thanks for the "thinking-mans" breakdown :) — CactusWriter 20:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks For The Unwelcome Welcome. Sincerely, A Constructive Protester

Thanks for creating a User Talk page for my IP Address, pointing to the usual intro material, but while I may return here from time to time, and go on occasional editing/anti-vandalism sprees, I refuse to re-activate my old account and resume regular contributions until the page for Allison Stokke is undeleted. 22:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not an admin so I don't have the power to undelete the page. I'm sure that if you can establish that the article's subject meets notability guidelines for people, that an admin would be happy to restore the page so you can add cites to reliable sources. I apologize if you don't believe that notability and reliability requirements are fair, but they've been established by consensus to make sure that Misplaced Pages remains valuable and not just a random collage of information. Without these guidelines, I'm sure you could see how WP would just become myspace or facebook. Thanks for the response. Hope you're having a great day!--Gnowor_C 22:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Help

I just put what other people had on thier pages there when you revert someones edit. No one will help me, I just keep getting yelled at. Certainlyserpent (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Changes to Dr. P.S. Timiras Wiki Pages

Extended discussion has been moved here.

Misplaced Pages:Future events

Weighing in on your conversation above; the examples I like to use are celestial events and the 2013 inauguration. Lunar and solar eclipses are predicted well past the end of this century, and the schedule is reliably sourced; there are many pages of these, and the possibility of at least one typographical error only means they should be checked afainst other references. The 2013 inauguation, meanwhile, is years away and the inauguree would be speculative, although references to an approved budget or scheduling of events would prompt the creation of its page, though it may occur before the election, and before the inauguree is known, if properly sourced. Wasn't positive how to link to the policy, but made it the subject header. 75.203.136.226 (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I knew I read it somewhere. WP:CRYSTALBALL might be the appropriate policy as well. Additionally, the edit in question happens to occur right before a comment that asks editors not to add speculation. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.--Gnowor_C 17:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Gray Maynard

You've just reverted my edits to Gray Maynard's MMA record, but unless it was overturned (which I'm not aware of) Maynard's fight with Rob Emerson was ruled a no contest because he rendered himself unconscious when he slammed Emerson, (injuring Emerson as well). This information is right there on Gray Maynard's page under "The Ultimate Fighter". This fight was not ruled a win, and certainly not a win by decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.230.211 (talk) 08:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You're entirely right. I remember the fight (and thinking what the hell just happened) but forgot it was Gray Maynard. I'm so used to seeing vandalism on these pages I guess I'm too skeptical to read. Thanks for your patience and for pointing out my error. I've restored your editon the page.--Gnowor_C 09:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Jacques Lacan

Hello! Thanks for your message. I'm very new to this and I'm not sure if this is where to ask. If it's not and you could point me in the right direction, I'd be much obliged.

On the page for Jacques Lacan, I added a "citation needed" note on the quote attributed to Slavoj Žižek in the "Desire" section. I read a very similar statement by Žižek, however, so I added a source at the end of the page. Is there any way to suggest a source for a needed citation? The quote given in the "Desire" section is not found in the essay by Žižek that I linked, but it is related in its content to parts of the essay. Gatid (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you've actually handled the situation beautifully. If someone clicked your source, and it was actually linked next to the quote, they'd wonder why they couldn't find the quote. As such, it's not the appropriate source for that quote. That being said, perhaps next to your link, you could add a description of the type of material that could be found there. I'm going to give this a shot, but as I'm not familiar with the subject matter, feel free to change this to something more appropriate:

*, further discussions by Žižek on Desire

This way, when they do see your link it the bottom, they'll know it's related material. Thanks so much for your contributions to the encyclopedia. Hope this helps!--Gnowor_C 09:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and always feel free to ask another editor if you see them around. Most editors are more than willing to help out. Additionally, you can post a message on the Talk page for each article. You'll find the talk page by clicking the Discussion tab at the top of the article.--Gnowor_C 09:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there any way to link it more directly to the part of the article it corresponds to? Like the page could have the quote with a footnote citation after it, but instead of linking to the References it would link to the entry I added to Sources. It would make the source more likely to be noticed, I guess. Gatid (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that it would be fine to just include it in the references section in that case. Again, you just want to make clear with the reference that it's not directly for that quote. For example, you could put the following next to the quote:

<ref>, other discussions by Žižek on Desire</ref>

Hope this helps!--Gnowor_C 11:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The size of Wim Crusio's Wiki page

Hi Gnowor,

As of December 22nd, 2010 the Wim Crusio Wiki page constituted 28,725 bytes of information, where as the Wiki page for Ernest Rutherford, "The father nuclear physics" and winner of the nobel prize, only has a Wiki page of 27,302 bytes as of December 22nd, 2010, and Maurice Wilkins who won the nobel prize for his co-discovery of the structure of DNA has a wiki page of only 23,014 bytes, while Elizabeth Blackburn who won the nobel prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2009 has only 11,065 bytes on her wiki page. I could add many more names of nobel prize winners, but if you wish to do so, please feel free to compare the amount of information in Wim Crusio's wki page to that of most nobel prize winners. I just thought I would point this fact out to the wiki community and ask for your comments on Win Crusio's Wiki page. Please comment on weather you think it is too large and perhaps should be reviewed or if you think the wiki pages of Ernest Rutherford and many of his fellow nobel prize winners are simply too small. Please feel free to leave your comments below this post. Bondiveres (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Listed are wiki page sizes of all the nobel prize winners for Physiology or Medicine for the last 8 years. Please compared these to Wim Crusio's wiki page of 28,725 bytes:

Robert G. Edwards 11,098 bytes
Jack W. Szostak 7,504 bytes
Carol W. Greide 9,605 bytes
Elizabeth Blackburn 11,065 bytes
Luc Montagnier 18,028 bytes
Françoise Barré-Sinoussi 6,950 bytes
Harald zur Hausen 9,985 bytes
Oliver Smithies 14,131 bytes
Martin Evans 24,109 bytes
Mario Capecch 13,940 bytes
Craig Mello 14,217 bytes
Andrew Fire 9,262 bytes
Robin Warren 5,187 bytes
Barry Marshall 13,074 bytes
Linda B. Buck 6,617 bytes
Richard Axel 19,924 bytes
Peter Mansfield 5,684 bytes
Paul Lauterbur 14,653 bytes
John E. Sulston 7,715 bytes
H. Robert Horvitz 4,080 bytes
Sydney Brenner 14,580 bytes

Note: All amounts displayed are as of 22 December 2010, and the average page size of these Nobel Laureates is 11,496 bytes, which is less than half that of Wim Crusio's wiki page of 28,725 bytes.

Based upon the above data, it would appear that a certain amount of information on Wim Crusio's wiki page was added by a sock puppet that he created in order to promote him self. I can only suggest this based on what I see from the data. I can not imagine how else Wim Crusio can have a wiki page more than twice the size of the average Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine for the last 8 years. I hope this is not the case, but I welcome your thoughts on this. I only ask one thing, and that is to explain how Wim Crusio's wiki should be more than twice the size of any of the Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine for the last 8 years and twice the size of an average winner of that prize. I look forward to hearing your comments. Bondiveres (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was a difference in page sizes. Unfortunately, I believe that's an inherent fact of how Misplaced Pages operates. For example this page is approximately 13k. As I mentioned in a previous discussion, I think a lot of people in the world deserve a larger page than the one just cited. That being said, I don't have the time or energy to create pages for all in question.

Someone has the relevant information to create a page for Wim Crusio. If you believe it was a sockpuppet, I recommend searching the page history and finding evidence of such rather than just assuming it is the case. If you have the edits to prove your point, it will be given much more weight by the community. Additionally, if you feel that other people deserve larger pages, that should give you a great place to start if you'd like to contribute more to Misplaced Pages. Again, we can either trim valuable content because we can't find enough about some supremely notable person, or we can work to find that content. Additionally, your argument seems to border on a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument.

If you can find information that is not necessary to the encyclopaedia in Wim's article, and the community agrees with you, it can probably be removed. That being said, given your history with Crusio, that might be seen as a vendetta. If you believe he has a vendetta against you, take the higher road and don't return the favor. Rather than having discussions about ways to get back at Crusio, you could be adding valuable information that you have to a world repository of information. Hope this helps.--Gnowor_C 00:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Gnowor,

I am shedding light on facts that were not known to most people, regarding the size of Wim Crusio's wiki content and it's relative size as it compares to the wiki pages of Nobel Laureates in the field Physiology or Medicine. I will take the high road as you suggest and add back the content that Crusio has deleted, and therefore add back valuable information to a world repository of information, so that others can learn about facts that Crusio, wants to hide from other people. I hope Wim Crusio takes the "High Road" and does not continues his vendetta, although I suspect he will. I hope Crusio takes your advice, but I does not think that is will. Time will tell. All the best, for the Holidays Bondiveres (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

BV, I've already given many hours of my time to these discussions. I fought for the inclusion of information on the Paola S. Timiras page. Crusio seemed to think initially that manipulating that page was a way to get information included in the encyclopedia that the community had already decided was not needed. I did not subscribe to that view as I like to hold on to the principle of assuming good faith as long as possible. Still, when Crusio suggested that simply renaming the link was enough and the source (which hasn't received recognition from the scientific community) was not needed, other issues arose.

The following may seem harsh, but as an editor with a few thousand edits, this may accurately reflect the view of third parties who look upon this situation, as I am one of those third parties. This is meant only as an alert to how the situation might be perceived.

You suggested Crusio was being vindictive, and went after his eponymous page. Additionally, I feel as if you've argued for the reliability and notability of your information without citing to policy on the matter, and thus you make arguments which go against policy in some cases. It has started to feel as if it has been a waste of my time to poor through these lengthy policy pages in order to better handle this situation, when it seems you have not invested similar efforts despite myself and others pointing you to these policy pages. Similarly, when I make an assertion that you're making an "other stuff exists" argument, you fail to respond to that comment, also suggesting you haven't read policy. You have made allegations of sockpuppetry without referring to it's policy page. It feels as if you spend more time making what are becoming futile arguments than constructively contributing to the encyclopedia. At this point, it feels like your efforts are made only to get credit for your substantial off-wiki, but yet non-wiki-notable work.

I offer two alternate suggestions at this point:

1. Review Misplaced Pages policy pages. Then, proceed to make constructive edits to other pages demonstrating that your care is for Misplaced Pages, and not gaining notability for yourself through Misplaced Pages (or pursuing a vendatta against a veteran editor whom you believe has a vendetta against you). Additionally, while reviewing policy pages, you should learn about pursuing action through articles for deletion, sockpuppet investigation, and the administrator's noticeboard. After reviewing policy, you'll be able to pursue action along these lines if you believe it to be appropriate.
2. Invest time in gaining notability for your work off-wiki. A few calls to a few WP:RS reliable newspapers, or more scientific publications might be all you need to gain notability sufficient to warrant coverage on Misplaced Pages. It will help you gain notability much quicker than continuing these discussions.

With that, I'm afraid we've reached the limit of time that I'm willing to devote to this matter. BV, I do believe you have the best intentions and heart, and that you feel you've been wronged by the Misplaced Pages community. I hope that as you continue to edit on matters unrelated to this one, that you'll better understand what Misplaced Pages is and the policies and guidelines the community work with. Again, I'm sorry I can't be of more assistance. I wish you only the best.

P.S. I will be moving this conversation here by tomorrow. I don't believe this situation best reflects you and your abilities, BV, and by moving the conversation, I hope that it remains somewhat hidden so that you can contribute to the encyclopedia in a way that reflects your abilities in a better light.--Gnowor_C 04:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)