Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:20, 19 April 2010

Welcome to Misplaced Pages! I have messed around with the albumins, if you do not like it say so on the talk pages - or revert and improve, if you think that is the best way.

Below are a couple of links that people like to throw at beginners. If you leave them here, you can check them out when you feel like.

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

I would also suggest you to check the page on edit summaries, which greatly helps others to check what you are doing. If you need any kind of help, feel free to ask at my talk page. There is also Misplaced Pages:Questions, or you can place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Edit away! See you in the albumin forest, hope we'll be able to see the trees

// Habj 21:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow

Are you a pathologist? I'm a med student. Don't you have any images that you could upload? :) Just drop me a message if you need any kind of help! Good work here! NCurse _work 12:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out all the issues about ownership (the hospital and/or the practice may hold the copyrights). Once I get through the ownership and privacy issues, I hope to generate some images (I'm really good with a photomicroscope).Novangelis 19:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Great! Please let me know whe you upload images. Thanks in advance. NCurse _work 22:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Consider reading this.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:MED

Hi,

the main page of WikiProject Medicine has just been redesigned, comments are welcome! Please consider listing yourself as a participant.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome on board, hope you enjoy it, feel free to ask if you need help!

The project has a userbox, feel free to move it to your user page.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Examineroftruth

This might have some info you could use in your sockpuppet accusation case; I filed it this morning. FusionMix 21:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you and enjoy your wikibreak. Novangelis (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

IP welcomed

Thank you, Novangelis, for extending a welcome :-) I have been lurking about doing the odd anonymous edit from various hospitals and only now have decided to get a proper log in. I would be delighted to help with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine. It was my disgust at finding Flutter valve listed under gastroenterology stubs and thought to be the lower oesophageal sphincter that initially prompted my sojourn into wiki editing. I'm sure I shall see more of your comments around the place. Orinoco-w (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sidefall

Thanks for comment re minor edit box. Point duly noted - I'm still relatively new to all this! Sidefall (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Spontaneous Generation

Hi Novangelis.

On spontaneous generation I'm just looking to add something to point out that the whole Aristotle thing is currently being disputed. Looking at what Template:Dubious links to, I see that it isn't quite right (as you point out, it's not really a dubious claim, just one that an editor is disputing), but I'm not sure if there is any better inline citation. I'd prefer not to tag a whole article or section with Template:Disputed because of this, but I suppose that would also be an acceptable route. Thanks for all the help on this article! -Verdatum (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll open a new thread on the talk page to clarify where things stand. I don't like having to find sources, just to protect a work in progress. I would rather have the article grow organically. Novangelis (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

d'oh, for some reason, I thought you had just removed the tag outright, don't know where that idea came from. If i had seen your edit properly, I wouldn't have even mentioned anything. Again, good stuff, thanks. -Verdatum (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A long flag to a is an easy one to miss. My comment, Not dubious: "Aristotle gathered the different claims into a real theory." looks like yet another flat revert if you don't see the quotation marks. Sometimes you can't predict how people will see things. I'm try to follow a basic idea: Don't get mad. Get sources. This can be a really good article. This is a subject that everyone has heard of, but few people know in depth, and there are so many colorful aspects. I'm glad someone took the effort to make this more than a preface to abiogenesis.Novangelis (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Nova,

I am proud of where SG is going. It is the most important piece I have been involved in. Realising that there was no page for this was in intself quite exciting and watching my baby be created without much input from me is great fun. IceDragon64 (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to be of help. This is the most complex subject I've worked on from such an early stage. I'm far more a scientist than a historian or philosopher, so it's good to go back to fundamentals. Novangelis (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Speed of light

I reversed your edit on speed of light. The speed of light is a defined value, not a measured value. So the observation can be made that all electromagnetic radiation travels at the same speed, but it cannot be observed what this speed is. Brews ohare (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The speed of light is measured to define the meter. The definition of the speed of light depends upon the measurement of the speed of light. Novangelis (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Differential scanning calorimetry

Thanks for your spelling corrections - I have always been rubbish at spelling... It's made me now to try to use Firefox, as IE7 lacks any spelling checking. Ronhjones (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Cleanup is easy. Good content is worth it. Hopefully Firefox will be the tool that let's you do the latter without needing the former. Novangelis (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Stability disambig changes

Please be careful when changing links to general Stability to the very specific BIBO stability. BIBO stability describes the behavior of a linear system with a very special input. However, it makes no sense to apply to nonlinear systems (i.e., systems that do not have impulse responses), and it doesn't make sense to apply to systems with no input (e.g., the linear system ${\displaystyle x'=-x}$, which is stable but is not BIBO stable). In many cases, the original author used the stability link in order to emphasize that the system would always return to its origin. Changing to an input-to-output notion of stability confuses the issue. If you must disambiguate, consider changing some stability links to point to Lyapunov stability and others to point to BIBO stability and yet others to point to Input-to-state stability based on their context. —TedPavlic (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought I was being careful, but it has been a while since I did any engineering work. I'll look over all my changes. I know that there are a number that I will not change. There is nothing for calibration stability or frequency fluctuation. I'll also make sure not to edit if I'm tired or distracted. Thanks for the heads-up. Novangelis (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

...and I've used stability theory, which is more general than Lyapunov stability, a fair amount. Novangelis (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Cardiology task force

Cardiology task force is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Cardiology on Misplaced Pages. Start by adding your name to the list of participants at Cardiology task force Participants. ECG Unit (Welcome!)

-- ~~~~

T.F.AlHammouri (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

Thank you for joining Cardiology task force, a collaborative effort to make the project more comprehensive and allot of improvment needed for many articles. Below are some ongoing tasks for you to take part in, or you can add a task to do. Another great place to check out is Category:Cardiovascular system stubs. Happy editing, T.F.AlHammouri (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Cardiology task force, tasks you can do: To-do list for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine/Cardiology task force: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2017-03-13 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Expand : Sharon Ann Hunt Stubs : all articles under Category:Cardiovascular system stubs, including Arteriosclerosis obliterans, Hyaline arteriolosclerosis, Arteriolosclerosis, Hyperplastic arteriolosclerosis, Aortopulmonary septal defect, Ductus venosus, Cardiopulmonary rehabilitation. Wikify : Double circulatory system, Ductus venosus.

Heterogenesis

My little page about heterogenesis got deleted. The reason given is that it was only a dictionary definition- which is quite true in itself. I produced a simple definition and the apt links, which, given that all sorts of information is there on the other pages seemed all that was neccesary. Obviously we should have a page, but what else should go on it? Are there things to say about heterogenensis that is not on the other pages? Or should a little about each sense be on that page, or should we insist on reinstating the page as it is? Best Wishes,

IceDragon64 (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out how to best approach that. I saw the deletion. I'm trying to decide if it warrant's a new page or not. I'm far enough along in my reading to know that I'm about to expand beyond Pasteur. When I'm done with that, I'll revisit heterogenesis. Expect to see some expansion in the section. Many of the terms are ambiguous as certain translators applied them to the ancient writers in retrospect. In different works, they have different meanings, and in different translations different terms reflect the era of the translation. This is why I looked to Huxley who coined the term abiogenesis, but the term has multiple meanings with different synonyms for each. Huxley's writing even contains the portmanteau, spontogenesis. I'm close to writing some more; expect a few expansions in the next 10 days. Novangelis (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Consciousness shift

Great minds think alike, I guess, as I was just about to prod that article myself. I looked around for an appropriate place to redirect that term, but came up short. Prod seemed the next best course of action. Thanks for beating me to it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's always nice to have an independent confirmation on these matters. Novangelis (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. You can return the favor, if you are amenable, by taking a look at Utopian music, which I prodded earlier this afternoon. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A topical theme is not a musical genre. It's on my watchlist.Novangelis (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite so and well said! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Testicular cancer

wonders why this user is ripping the testicular cancer wiki page in favour of him self or friends? and deletes usefull links and support links and famous survivors? he mite want to look at the rules of wiki abuse of powers before i do and so something about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.219.55 (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I would encourage you to look up the relevant policies. I am enforcing the "rules" of Misplaced Pages and have no conflicts of interest to disclose. I will not tolerate meaningless threats, especially unsigned threats.Novangelis (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice!

Well done. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 18:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. After the flurry of activity last month, I'm surprised it wasn't done sooner. I guess the blogosphere has a shorter attention span than Wikipedians.Novangelis (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Reason for reverting addition of portrait of Sagan

Is this not related and appropriate for the external links section? How could it be accepted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewg42 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not appropriate. Links normally to be avoided #11: "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites..."Novangelis (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What

What do you mean I know better? 80.195.252.128 (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who can cite policies about blanking user pages must know that article page blanking is wrong.Novangelis (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

PZ Meyers

That was a mistake, I apologize (removing the references was just an error I made while editing). The previous "editor" removed the whole section about the "T-shirt incident" because he claimed the references didn't mention it. I check the references and they didn't mention that specific incident or the student's name, so I inserted ref from the Creation "museum" owner's blog about the incident (this was the only notable source I could find on Google relating to the student being expelled - and since it was the owner's own account of the incident, quoting it in the article as a statement from the owner would seem to solve the previous editor's concern). Thanks.--SuaveArt (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Arthur C Clarke

Hey, why do you keep reverting my edits. It may create an edit war. I am trying my best to add to the page. You are trying to discourage me. Do you have an issue with Arthur C Clarke? Maybe you want to look after Michael Crichton and H G Wells' pages. Don't get sentimental. Use logic. Logic dictates. All my edits were useful and not useless. Moreover they are "factual". ankit 18:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitsingh83 (talk • contribs)

You are ignoring all comments. I am not try to discourage you. I am trying to get you to write in an encyclopedic manner. If you looked at page history, it is clear that I do not have an issue with Clarke, but with your edits: the weight you are giving to weak sources and your editing the lead without regard to the established content in the body.Novangelis (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I was puzzled by the removal of so many external links, including a number of obituaries. Surely each obituary is a unique resource?--Michael C. Price 18:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No. In fact, "so many" and "unique" are contrary. I kept IAF because Clarke was a member. In fact, he was at an IAF conference when Sputnik was launched and the site includes his 50th anniversary remembrances. Blind reversion can restore links that should not be restored and lose other changes.Novangelis (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Not contrary, unless all the bio' information in each obituary appears in the article and/or are copies of each other. --Michael C. Price 18:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. The fact that the text differs does not make something a unique resource. Misplaced Pages is not a collection of links. Links should be included because they add something that cannot be added merely by doing good research and writing a good article. Stringent criteria should be applied.Novangelis (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That's crap. Obituaries are a very good resource, but I can't be bothered anymore. --Michael C. Price 07:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Euclid Vandalism

The user Novangelis, keeps reverting information on historical euclid data. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Euclid&curid=9331&diff=340981569&oldid=340980627 and http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Euclid&curid=76413&diff=340975187&oldid=340962285 He quote states "Link does not support claimed content or display any content text" If you follow the link or read which was posted on the talk page you see that there is historical data on oriental origin of euclid. Please stop the vandalism or im forced to report your action. --DuKu (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Novangelis keeps reverting a link ( http://perseus.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Euc.+1 ) i try to add to the wiki of euclid and seems to always find another execuse. - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Euclid&diff=341002912&oldid=341002772 - reason: remove duplicate link to one in - →References - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Euclid&diff=341002912&oldid=340980627 - reason: Link does not support claimed content or display any content text http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Euclid&diff=341002912&oldid=340972918 -reason: misformatted, unnecessary link --DuKu (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Just flagging that this seems to be turning into an edit war. I've tagged Duku's page and am assuming they're a new editor Clovis Sangrail (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Novangelis accusation continues. He claims i deleted something under a report of the user Finell. If he keeps up with his wrong accusations im forced to report him aswell. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Finell.27s_accusations_.28related_to_my_bann.29 --DuKu (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Skepticism

I see you have noted the edit war at Skepticism and have notified Wiggalama. I have invited User:Wiggalama to participate in a discussion. The edit warring needs to stop. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice catch

I didn't know there was an overarching subject. -- Kendrick7 01:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

REFRAIN FROM LIBEL, REFRAIN FROM CYBER-STALKING

Your gang said:

"Edit warring, promotion of fringe views

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

Your edits to macroevolution were promoting a viewpoint held by such a small minority among biologists as to fall under WP:FRINGE guidelines. Our articles have to conform with WP:WEIGHT policy when it comes to showing such minority views. You were also using AiG as a source – verification is required from a reliable third party source, not from creationists promoting their own views. Please discuss your proposals for changes on the article talk page, and refrain from edit warring which is not the way to get anything in articles. Thanks, dave souza, talk 21:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Information.svg Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Misplaced Pages articles. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. — Scientizzle 16:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop. If you continue to violate Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. — Scientizzle 16:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)"

All you are doing is making mere accusations and of the very things you do. I will not be drawn into an endless fight against your cyber-harassment. If you want me to press charges against for breaking federal law against Internet harassment and libel, keep it up.Oriclan (talk)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists