User talk:Wikid77
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
|
Kukini 03:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Brokeback Mountain
Hi, I've undone a couple of your recent edits to Brokeback Mountain-related articles. I'm not sure how to explain, so for now I'll just refer you to Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, Wikipedia:Disambiguation, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Cheers, Melchoir 12:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I should try to be more specific:
- Don't use HTML commented-out comments.
- Top-level sections have two = signs, not three.
- Section titles aren't capitalized, except for the first word.
- Italicized notes at the top are for disambiguation between articles with the same name, not for explanation of content.
- Good formatting doesn't use extra spaces, and they are routinely removed by other editors.
- The "See also" section is for links that are relevant to the article but aren't mentioned in the body.
For example, see the featured article V for Vendetta (film). The articles V for Vendetta (soundtrack) and V for Vendetta do not link to each other, and neither has a "See also" section. V for Vendetta has a disambiguation notice at the top only because someone typing in "V for Vendetta" to the search box might become confused upon visiting the article. V for Vendetta (soundtrack) links to the film in the first sentence, and does not link to it again. Note also the syling of the sections and the use of blank lines in the source code. -Wikid77 18:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Generally, since you're new, and the style guides take time to learn, you shouldn't worry too much about this sort of thing. Just focus on content and generally try to imitate existing articles. Other editors will clean up the style issues-- and trust us when we do! Melchoir 14:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- RESPONSE 30-May-2006: To Melchoir: Whatever defense you wish to say, you have been vandalizing my contributions to Wikipedia, by blanking whole sections, without an attempt to open a prior dialog with me. Since you are new to this, let me remind you that you should seriously consider talking with a previous-revision editor before deleting, or reverting, within hours, several articles that had been expanded, in a good-faith attempt, to improve information. In general, let me advise you that "form over substance" is usually a very bad policy for information distribution. However, you are not the only person who is vandalizing Wikipedia articles, but just the latest causing such ridiculous problems in thwarting the use of Wikipedia. -Wikid77 18:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- You seem to misunderstand the Wikipedia editing process. Please see Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages and Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Other users do not have an obligation to discuss minor changes with you before implementing them, and these are indeed minor changes. If you believe in subtance over form, I invite you to reflect that I have not removed any actual content from the articles themselves, just the way they are packaged.
- Well-intentioned people disagree over such matters all the time on Wikipedia. Please do not resort to crying "vandalism" over it. See Wikipedia:Vandalism for what that word really means. Accusing other users of vandalism is the surest way of pissing them off, and I advise you to find a better way to express your frustrations in the future.
- Well, let's start over again, shall we? The most important items are the italicized notes at the top; they are distracting and out of place. See Wikipedia:Hatnotes. I'll remove them again, and wait for you to absorb the change. Melchoir 21:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- 30-May-2006: I don't understand why you feel compelled to edit those articles before I have even responded to your misunderstandings. The top-note form that I have been using is shown in the "Wikipedia:Hatnotes" article as the example: "This article is about USE1. For USE2, see PAGE2." I hope you can understand the example and that the article does NOT say hatnotes are solely for disambiguation of overloaded terms.
-
-
-
- Since the proposed restrictions about the hatnotes are not even official Wikipedia policy, I suggest you retreat from harrassing me further about these very legitimate changes to an entire set of related articles.
-
-
-
- Wikipedia is a social forum, where people interact, and people expect to find information, rather than deletions to information. Please re-think your behavior concerning my legitimate updates, why you felt compelled to re-delete my additions 3 times, and also, please question your own motives as to why this has happened. Thank you. -Wikid77 22:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Because if we just sat here talking, nothing would get done. I've seen it happen: discussions can become drawn-out arguments, and the participants forget all about who's proposing what changes to which article. People quickly lose their sense of scope and context. It's much better to stay active. I've been careful not to simply revert you; this way we have a focused pair of edits to discuss.
- It's true that there is no official policy that hatnotes are reserved for disambiguation. The Wikipedia community actively resists developing new policies on such small matters. But I hope that from reading that page, especially the "Examples of improper use" section and the talk page, that community consensus strongly discourages using them for anything else. I can honestly tell you that I have never seen an article that uses hatnotes for the purposes you propose. What I have seen is the occasional user who inserts such a note, and someone else always takes it out later. I hope you appreciate, at least, being told why this is happening.
- My own motives are simple: to improve the encyclopedia. Today's issues aren't a big deal. You'll feel better if you focus on something more productive, I guarantee it! Melchoir 22:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Userpage vs Encyclopedia page
Hello! Wikid77 is not the appropriate spot to post information about yourself, because that's the encyclopedic part of the Wikipedia website. User:Wikid77, however, is all yours to use more or less as you wish. Please see Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:User page for more information.--Zpb52 07:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for fixing that. I was tired and had been meaning to edit User:Wikid77 for days, but got side-tracked in 10 other articles. Thanks again. -Wikid77 07:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Brokeback Mountain cinematic analysis
I was very disappointed to discover the 'Brokeback Mountain cinematic analysis' article had been deleted. I enjoyed reading it and learned a lot. If possible, can you send me a written copy? Thank you. Shamir1 07:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:GMax_JesusHealingSick.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:GMax_JesusHealingSick.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] An Inconvenient Truth bestseller dates
You found a funny URL that points to the Aug. 20 list. Note that Aug. 11 isn't even a Sunday. If you go to this link you can see the Aug. 13 list, which has An Inconvenient Truth at number one after 9 weeks. If you just navigate from the website to the bestseller list it will take you to the most current, i.e. Aug. 20 (this coming Sunday). Crust 19:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cite web
Please learn how to use the {{cite web}} template for making reference citations. Thanks. --Golbez 03:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Also, when you name a reference, that doesn't mean you have to mention it again. That is, if you have two identical references, and name the first one "foo", to have the second one use that reference just type "[ref name="foo" /]". No citation or [/ref] needed. (Replace [ ] with < > as needed). I see you making duplicate references AND giving them names. --Golbez 03:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your edits to Hurricane Katrina
Please stop. Your edits are actually, contrary to what you may think, NOT helping the article. You keep saysing that you're making it NPOV - replaced "substantial" with "total devastation" as a more accurate NPOV? That's hardly more NPOV. I will be reverting your changes right back to the last version, please DISCUSS your planned changes on the talk page and wait for CONSENSUS, or an RFC will be started against you - your edits are hardly NPOV. – Chacor 12:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Your continued terming of reverts of your edits as vandalism is not acceptable and violates WP:OWN as well as WP:CIV. Continued violations of these policies is blockable. I will say this, prepare to answer a request for comment soon. You should always discuss major edits, especially to the extent of the edits you made. As for who I am, I've been here since September and am a former admin. – Chacor 12:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WP:CIV, WP:3RR
Please deal with other contributions in a polite and constructive manner. Rude behavior is discouraged by Wikipedia policies. See Wikipedia:Civility. Thank you. Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. – Chacor 13:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- You appear to have already violated the three-revert rule on Hurricane Katrina. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. —AySz88\^-^ 13:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
You have been blocked 24 hours for making four reverts to Hurricane Katrina in a period of only 47 minutes. Please remember that basing a new, unrelated edit on a non-current version of a page, especially your own, is still considered a revert, as it has the effect of undoing any more recent changes by other editors.
You have been blocked an additional 3 hours for hostile edit summaries in which you refer to other users' edits "vandalism", apparently because you happen to disagree with them.
Your block expires August 27, 2006 at 16:42 (UTC). Have a nice day. —freak(talk) 13:56, Aug. 26, 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your edits to Meteorological History...
Hi! I noticed that you added a section to Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina. I think that the kind of synopsis you are trying to achieve is already covered by the Storm History section of Hurricane Katrina. If you still think you need to add some additional information to the Meteorological history article, please add it into the respective sections. Also, please avoid stuff about impacts (beach houses, ships listing...), as that's the function of other articles (i.e. the "Effects of Hurricane Katrina on..." articles). —AySz88\^-^ 03:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Ann-Richards-Senate-photo.jpg
How did you locate that image? It's really nice and looks official, but I can't find a link to it, aside from the direct one you provided, in the News section or via search on Senator Dorgan's site. I didn't list it for deletion, but the person who did does have a point. If it can be verified it's a work of the US federal government, it's PD. State governments aren't carte blanche PD, from what I understand. TransUtopian 22:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's not causing trouble per se, but it's listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#September 14 which means it may be removed by the 28th if copyright status isn't verified. Previously, Image:AnnRichards 20050210.jpg from Commons was in the infobox, which claims template:cc-by-sa-2.0. It's an okay image. If you have a better one though, go for it. TransUtopian 01:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you for your message
I am a fan of Cole Porter, so no bad reflections. I thank you for not taking it that way. There is such a double standard around here it is exhasuting. So I thank you, and your points are well taken. You are right - just desert controversial pages as those pushing a certain point alwaays get their way because they are sophisticated in the ways of doing so. I thank you for a rare moment of encouragement. Usually when I get the "message" banner I dread it. Most of the time I don't know what the heck the messengers are talking about. So thanks! Timmy12 02:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image tagging for Image:Hurricane_Katrina_1200utc29Aug_col4deg.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Hurricane_Katrina_1200utc29Aug_col4deg.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image tagging for Image:Hurricane_Katrina_1500utc29Aug2005_col4deg.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Hurricane_Katrina_1500utc29Aug2005_col4deg.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] trailer
I suggest you rename the article "FEMA temporary disaster housing", or some such, and re-write a bit to expand the scope. Unfortunately, but logically, it's usually the case that people interested in deleting hang out in AFD. I'll never understand the deletionist mentality. At any rate, it's one way to eliminate the stated reason of many delete votes before the debate closes. Derex 05:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FEMA Trailer
Please refrain from making insults against Wikipedia and its community on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FEMA Trailer. This is incivil, and is a violation of policy. On another note, you don't have to reply to and/or attack every single delete argument - if you feel the article can be fixed, just fix it and say you fixed it on the article. While sarcasm is not usually incivil, most editors do not appreciate it. --Coredesat 08:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ernst Haeckel
Thanks for the hard work, and letting me know about it. I was originally going to translate it from German, which proved difficult due to ongoing edit wars on the German Wikipedia. I think the article we now have is much nicer in many ways. I nominated it as a good article (see article talk). Best wishes, Samsara (talk · contribs) 11:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm concerned that the statement that Haeckel considered politics to be applied biology is unsourced. Do you know where this is from? - Samsara (talk · contribs) 23:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Georgia Tech
 |
As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know that I've started WikiProject Georgia Tech, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Georgia Tech. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC) |
[edit] Hermann Klaatsch
Thank you for contributing this article! I have announced it at the Germany-related announcement page. If you create more articles about German scientists, please list them there and consider contributing to the Germany WikiProject. Thanks again, and happy editing, Kusma (討論) 22:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Did you know?
 |
On 6 December 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hermann Klaatsch, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
