User talk:Golf
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello, and welcome. Would you please stop to create article which only contain {{stub}}? Such article are a very bad idea - they hide the fact that the article isn't written yet - if you think these articles deserve a stub, then you should write at least a stub - see Wikipedia:stub for what a stub is supposed to be. andy 07:43, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I was wondering what happend to my stubs....
- I see what you mean, yet this is what a stub is supposed to be right?
- I deleted them right away, as I am an admin who has the power to delete :-) As mentioned in Wikipedia:Perfect stub article - to have a stub worth keeping it need to state at least the basic fact about a topic - e.g. for a person the name, lifedates, nationality, and most of all why that person is important enough to have a biography in an encyclopedia. Or for a city at least the location. However I personally still don't like stubs which just state the basic facts, much better is a longer article. So maybe instead of adding even more stubs (we already have tons of them), why not investigate in one topic in more depth and make it a real good article instead. andy 07:56, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Yea that sounds good, yet I came across some facts about the Torino games of 2006 and am not a geographical researcher :-) Would like to be, but I don't have the time for it... But if you think that it is better to have just the standerd edit page after opening a link. Well thats fine by me. Not my type of thing, but oke... P.S. I did create the stubs because people will create pages about those places because of the games, so I did do a little ground work...
- The red link is nothing bad, quite the contrary, it may invite a new user to write about the topic from scratch. It is rather controversy whether it'd attract more contributions to have a red link or to have a short stub waiting to be extended. But you don't need to know much about a city to write about it - see e.g. Hilter which I wrote only using the official homepage of that town - it is still short, but contains more than any regular encyclopedia would ever have about that rather unimportant town. I myself consider it fun to research for a topic - that way I learn something new myself, and then condense the facts into the article. BTW: It is costum here to sign your comments on talk pages, simply by adding ~~~~ at the end. andy 09:03, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Andy, k, I will sign the end of an addition even while it is my Talk page... But back to the real topic... How do I do reserach without violating the (c) of a source? In The Netherlands there is a law that will let me quote a 100 words out of any source without regard for the copywrite on that source, yet sinds this is a org based in California that law doesn't apply. How do I manage this problem? I would like to be able to do the kind of work that you say you do, indeed one could learn allot from that. Usualy I write small bits down as a way to remember it, but I dont want to playgurize anyones work... - Golf 11:35, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- P.S. One thing I love about Wikipedia is that one can just brows it and learn things about topics at random and this is a great way to spend time at work when there is nothing to do. :-) - Golf 11:38, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Quite simply - I don't copy the text. I write a new text containing the facts of the original source, which isn't a copyright violation anymore. And normally I also cite the source I used, thus it cannot count as plagiarism either. As it's often a good idea to use more than one source you have to write it on your own to combine the facts from both.
- And yes, Wikipedia is addictive, be careful or you will become a Wikipediholic like me :-) andy 12:05, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- The red link is nothing bad, quite the contrary, it may invite a new user to write about the topic from scratch. It is rather controversy whether it'd attract more contributions to have a red link or to have a short stub waiting to be extended. But you don't need to know much about a city to write about it - see e.g. Hilter which I wrote only using the official homepage of that town - it is still short, but contains more than any regular encyclopedia would ever have about that rather unimportant town. I myself consider it fun to research for a topic - that way I learn something new myself, and then condense the facts into the article. BTW: It is costum here to sign your comments on talk pages, simply by adding ~~~~ at the end. andy 09:03, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Yea that sounds good, yet I came across some facts about the Torino games of 2006 and am not a geographical researcher :-) Would like to be, but I don't have the time for it... But if you think that it is better to have just the standerd edit page after opening a link. Well thats fine by me. Not my type of thing, but oke... P.S. I did create the stubs because people will create pages about those places because of the games, so I did do a little ground work...
- I deleted them right away, as I am an admin who has the power to delete :-) As mentioned in Wikipedia:Perfect stub article - to have a stub worth keeping it need to state at least the basic fact about a topic - e.g. for a person the name, lifedates, nationality, and most of all why that person is important enough to have a biography in an encyclopedia. Or for a city at least the location. However I personally still don't like stubs which just state the basic facts, much better is a longer article. So maybe instead of adding even more stubs (we already have tons of them), why not investigate in one topic in more depth and make it a real good article instead. andy 07:56, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
