User talk:Geary
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149
Contents |
[edit] Farallon Islands
Hi there. I changed your edits to the abvove article back to how they were. When describing seabird numbers the total number of birds is not simply twice the number of pairs, there are always large numbers of non-breeding birds. We can estimate the number of pairs that were on the island then (because of the number of eggs that were taken) but not the total number of birds. Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pointing stick
Hi! While I do think that mixing several wildly different meanings in the same article (except on disambiguation pages) is a bad idea, I do not think that any kind of ‘perversion’ should be a reason against Fastifex’s contributions. Please remember that Wikipedia is not censored; regarding your daughter reading Wikipedia, please also keep in mind the content disclaimer and generally remember that material that you consider inappropriate may still be interesting and encyclopedic and the easiest way to avoid it is simply to avoid it. —xyzzyn 15:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well maybe not perversion per se but certainly his tendency to make everything into an article on corporal punishment is regrettable no matter how you slice it and dice it. It does not work to just defend any content on the grounds that it "may still be interesting and encyclopedic". Supposing I decided that every possible article, and qute a few impossible ones, had to refer to chocolate ice-cream? I could do it, I could claim it was interesting and encyclopedic - to me at least. Would yzzy_n defend it in the same way, I wonder? It's not just about "perversion", it's about one user NOT having the right to convert the whole encyclopaedia to his weltanschauung. Geary is right: an RfC is long overdue. 138.37.199.206 09:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ex-Corporal Punishment is the most important person in the War on Chocolate! We cannot omit any mention of that.
- OK, seriously, I don’t like what Fastifex is doing, either, and casual communication does not seem to work. My comment above was meant to explain the impact of qualitative aspects of content; I do not dispute that some of Fastifex’s edits are improper in terms of quantity or position. —xyzzyn 11:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Shed
Hello, Michael. Thanks for your support at "Hairbrush". You might like to keep an eye on the history of "Shed". Cheers. AnnH ♫ 19:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ann. Wow, that is sick.
- Well, at least I added something nice to Hairbrush for a change. Do you think that is allowed on Wikipedia? --Michael Geary 02:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Catholic articles
I have told Fastifex time and time again to assert the notability of articles and to use categories putting them in a historical and national context. I belive if he does this and the articles are wirthy he should be allowed to resume his work on the condition that he STOPS COPYING, ADDS CATEGORIES AND MAKES THE ARTICLE NOTABLE. I sent this following message to Fastifex:
HI while I do appreciate your work and enthusiasm for the Catholic Encyclopedia I do agree that much of your work at present is not really written for wikipedia. What I mean by that is that you have consistently written articles of scholars and diocese without putting them into categories or placing them in Catholic history you just used Derived from Catholic Encyclopedia. I did tell you several times to use categories e.g French scholars and to work on making your articles more notable but you ignored my warning. For your articles to be effective on wikipedia you really need to assert the importance of the scholar or Catholic priest or whatever and his work, placing it into a historical and national context. If the scholar or whatever is linked to another important religious or political figure state this linking articles and history together. I must admit that I have read some of your articles and I to be honest I am surpised admin allowed them to be kept because they lacked all of the criteria. While I strongly beleive that Catholic history does need to be covered on wikipedia think about refining your work and MAKE them notable if you want to get other users off your back. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 13:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
