User talk:Dv82matt/Archive 01
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Dv82matt/Archive 01, 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! karmafist
Contents |
[edit] Re: TES Infoboxes
- My, these are huge... IMO we should better stick with the old small ones... --Koveras
14:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- It's not that huge, check out Template:Half-Life for example. Also this template isn't intended to go on every page to do with 'The Elder Scrolls' just a few of the major ones. I agree with you that this template would look out of place on short articles. Dv82matt 15:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Yeah, Half-Life template is brutally oversized... But as long as you are not planning to put this on into smaller articls, that's just fine with me. :) BTW, thank you for writing the articles about TES creatures and Chimer. --Koveras 17:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, Half-Life template is brutally oversized... But as long as you are not planning to put this on into smaller articls, that's just fine with me. :) BTW, thank you for writing the articles about TES creatures and Chimer. --Koveras
-
-
-
-
-
- Interesting. %) And I was sure, you are the author... Anyway, the picture of an Imperial is problematic. Check out Category:The Elder Scrolls images, maybe you'll find a screenshot of one there... Otherwise, we could just mention that the Imperials are the "most normal" humans of Tamriel and let it be like that. :) --Koveras 09:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting. %) And I was sure, you are the author... Anyway, the picture of an Imperial is problematic. Check out Category:The Elder Scrolls images, maybe you'll find a screenshot of one there... Otherwise, we could just mention that the Imperials are the "most normal" humans of Tamriel and let it be like that. :) --Koveras
-
-
-
[edit] The Western
I reverted your change of this article to a redirect. All of the links to that page are for the casino and not something else. Also, given that there had been no categories assigned, I suspect that most people who could have fixed the article were not aware that it even existed. It has now been listed on the Wikiproject Las Vegas talk page to see if someone who knows somethings more about this properity can jump in and fix it. If nothing happensin aweek or two, please feel free to {{prod}} the article so it can be deleted rather then changing it to a redirect. Vegaswikian 20:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Okey doke. Sounds good. --Dv82matt 21:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Topic in footer
I have reverted your additions of the topic in footers to music of articles. There are already similar boxes organized along normal music area lines. Thanks. Tuf-Kat 22:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm glad I stoped when I did then. But not all the articles have similar nav boxes. Check Music of Canada and Music of United States for example. --Dv82matt 00:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Barnstar
Just wanted to drop you an Editor's Barnstar for working tirelessly on merging and keeping TES-related articles clean and relevant. It's a work that you won't receive much credit for, but should. Well done. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 00:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, I appreciate it. --Dv82matt 22:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ahmedabad GA
Hello. I see that you have nominated Ahmedabad for GA. But this article is going to have an FAC soon (today or tomorrow), so there is no point going for GA nomination as well. From what i understand, GA was started for articles which would not make it to FA level primarily due to reasons like the length of the article, which is not the case with Ahmedabad. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 13:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sure no problem the FAC should take precedence. But GA is not limited to shorter articles as far as I am aware. Dv82matt 22:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Enforce inclusion of categories
Hi, I've made a proposal to change the software to prevent mainspace pages from being saved unless they contain a category. Since you've done a lot of work at User:Bluemoose/Uncategorised good articles, which would be affected by this proposal, I'd appreciate your thoughts! bd2412 T 23:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User Page Link Bar and Toolbox
I came across your user page with its link bar and tool box. It is a very useful set up that I have added to my own user page. I am not sure if it is your invention or where it might have come from, but thanks for sharing it! Cheers. KenWalker | Talk 05:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note about the edit count link. I had noticed it wasn't being updated and in the last few days have poked around about fixing it, but not got it done. Works great now. KenWalker | Talk 19:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Adel Hassan Hamad
Could you please explain why you put a {wikify} tag on Adel Hassan Hamad? -- Geo Swan 12:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Taking a second look the formating is not as bad as I initially thought. I've made a few minor adjustments and removed the tag. Feel free to revert if you disagree with them. —dv82matt 12:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the adjustments. -- Geo Swan 16:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup for Lake Pepin
Do you remember why you put the {{cleanup}} tag on Lake Pepin? I was taking a look at the article and trying to figure out why it needed cleaning up. There was a list of casualties from a boat accident there, although that list has since been removed. About all I see right now is the possibility for minor formatting fixes and some expansion, including an infobox.
If you let me know what needed cleaning up, I'll look at it in more detail and see if I can fix it. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 21:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, with that unsightly list removed the cleanup tag is no longer really needed. It could still use some wikification I think, such as delinking years and redundant links, but feel free to remove the cleanup tag. —dv82matt 22:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion of Hakia
Hi, just curious why you deleted this article. It was on the articles for creation page, and I think it's now notable enough for inclusion. —dv82matt 06:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- There was no assertion of importance. Sarah Ewart 06:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Okay thanks. But doesn't the assertion that they are creating the first "meaning based" search engine amount to an assertion of importance? —dv82matt 06:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think so and it didn't say that anyway; it said that's what they claim they are doing, which is very different. There's no prejudice against another article if you think you can make a stronger case for notability. Sarah Ewart 06:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- I may have misunderstood what you meant by 'assertion of importance'. Would mentions by third parties be more useful in establishing importance? I probably won't re-create the article unless I am reasonably sure that it will meet the standards of Wikipedia. Thanks again for your help. —dv82matt 06:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- According to a version that was deleted for the same reasons six days ago, the search engine is "currently in Beta...and is scheduled for release during 2007." If this is correct, I would not advise recreating this article until it is released, or unless you feel you can establish verifiable notability under WP:CORP. Otherwise it will most likely be deleted again. This article has been deleted three times already. Sarah Ewart 07:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it is currently in beta but it is available to the general public. I'm not sure that it doesn't meet WP:CORP but I agree that it's not a slam dunk. I just checked it's Alexa ranking, which is 25,482 so nothing too hopeful there, but Google returns 466,000 results. Its also been mentioned on several high profile blogs and even in the mainstream media. I will take your advice and wait till it's out of beta before recreating it. Cheers. —dv82matt 07:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- According to a version that was deleted for the same reasons six days ago, the search engine is "currently in Beta...and is scheduled for release during 2007." If this is correct, I would not advise recreating this article until it is released, or unless you feel you can establish verifiable notability under WP:CORP. Otherwise it will most likely be deleted again. This article has been deleted three times already. Sarah Ewart 07:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- I may have misunderstood what you meant by 'assertion of importance'. Would mentions by third parties be more useful in establishing importance? I probably won't re-create the article unless I am reasonably sure that it will meet the standards of Wikipedia. Thanks again for your help. —dv82matt 06:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think so and it didn't say that anyway; it said that's what they claim they are doing, which is very different. There's no prejudice against another article if you think you can make a stronger case for notability. Sarah Ewart 06:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Okay thanks. But doesn't the assertion that they are creating the first "meaning based" search engine amount to an assertion of importance? —dv82matt 06:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stubs
Thank you for adding {{stub}} to artcles. IF possible please use a specific stub rather than {{stub}}. A helpful list of stub types is at WP:WSS/ST. Thank you. Ksbrowntalk 13:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, that is one giant list of stubs! Stub sorting isn't really my thing but I'll do my best. —dv82matt 14:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
