User talk:Mareino/Archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of a talk page. The actual talk page is here. |
Welcome!
Contents |
[edit] The Standard Greeting
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
You can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date.
[edit] The Sub-standard Greeting
If you know me, give me a call sometime; we'll hang out. Or, just leave a message below.
[edit] Answering Machine: you have 0 missed calls
[edit] Current/Former British colonies
FYI - Antigua is not a British possession. In addition, "colony" is not the term used for current possessions. Thanks. Guettarda 21:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Civ 4
On the Civilization IV page, you reverted my revert. You claim that you are adding religion information back in. However, when I look at the history, it looks to me like you are removing this information. I reverted the change again. Can you please double-check before reverting my revert. I could be wrong but I don't think I am... and you are clearly not a vandal. --Yamla 20:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm an idiot. I was indeed missing more edits further down the page. Clearly I was messed up, thanks for your patience. --Yamla 20:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Hammertime
I posted a vfd on Hammertime when I should have posted a cleanup. If you want to restore the vfd, that's fair, but I don't think it's fair that you also deleted the extensive editing that I did to Hammertime in order to eliminate the problem. It has since garnered several "delete" votes that, based on the comments, it would not have garnered if people had read the improved version. Could you please revert the main page to reflect my improvements and delete or strike-through the comments on the vfd page that referred to the old version? I would do it myself, but I think this whole experience has proven that I'm not very handy with the more powerful tools on Wiki yet. Mareino 19:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry about that; I didn't even realize you had changed anything, I just reverted back to the previous version, I'll fix the mistake and post a notice at the AfD. Peyna 19:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Just an update that I left notes on the talk pages for the two editors that voted during that time period. Peyna 19:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Sources for Variety Shac
Hello, good work on Variety Shac, and thanks for the contribution. However, you did not provide any references or sources in the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. From what websites, books, or other places did you learn the information that you added to Variety Shac? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? You can simply add links, or see WP:CITET if you wish to review some of the different citation methods. Thanks! --Allen3 talk 13:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- Taking a second look at the article, you are correct that you included links to both the group's website as well as the website of one of the members. I was just skimming the text of articles listed on Special:Newpages and apparently missed the links. At this time it would probably be better to wait until more information is added before moving the links to a ==References== section. --Allen3 talk 16:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] LoPbN Bot
Thanks for your comment, which probably went largely unread since the LoPbN AfD sub-page had already gone off the AfD page's list of subpages. (That removal is effected by a fully autonomous bot.)
My reference to a bot was not intended (nor do i think it was generally understood) as suggesting an autonomous bot, which would indeed be unsuitable. Many activities on WP are "bot assisted", so that the bot looks for something of the general sort the bot operator is interested in, and presents it for determination of whether further action (in some cases automatic and in others manual) should be taken. A good LoPbN bot would, as far as my thinking goes so far, traverse the tree of descendants of Category:People, maintaining a record of the parent (i.e., non-leaf) nodes and asking for help whenever new parents were added. The operator would, for instance recognize that "Mark Twain" as a category is most unlikely be a true sub-category of people, and could e.g. simply instruct the bot to skip that sub-tree.
(IMO, the article Mark Twain belongs where i found Category:Mark Twain, but that category title is confusing; it might be worth a clear policy that a person's name can never be the title of a category, with something like Category:Mark Twain topics replacing it. A motivation for such a policy would be that, naming aside, AFAIK, it is a clear violation of the fundamental principle of the Cat system for anything but a non-fictional person to be a descendent of Category:People; thus the short paths between the bio Mark Twain and the book article Tom Sawyer, within the Cat tree, have to be via some common-ancestor Cat (or Cats) not a descended from either Category:People or Category:Novels. Unless i am mistaken about the basic philosophy, the name invites trouble.)
We probably can never assure that the Cat structure will completely conform to policy, so the hope of a fully autonomous bot flawlessly navigating it is IMO absurd -- even tho we can do better than the current ancestors and descendants of Category:Mark Twain suggest.
It might be worth having this bot attempt to construct a draft LoPbN entry for a new apparent bio article, but even where the format is right, the descriptions of area of notability are almost always too wordy for the LoPbN's purpose of aiding navigation to the article for an imprecisely remembered (and perhaps ambiguous) name. The best approach IMO will be an extract from which the bot operator can knock out and/or replace words; i expect the bot could build up tables of equivalents, by comparing existing LoPbN entries with the corresponding bios' leads, and learn e.g. that "Olympic gold medal and world champion ice hockey goalie" can be replaced by "hockey player".
As to "freeze", no, that is not something AfD could mandate, and to the extent that i grasp your concern, it is not advice that i will take.
In any case, thanks for participating in the AfD discussion.
--Jerzy•t 17:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] User:141.150.185.226
Blocked for 24 hours, cheers for the heads up. For future reference you can also post notice of vandals at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (or WP:AIV for short), nearly all admins have that on their watchlist so it normally results in a quick blocking. the wub "?!" 15:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
