User talk:LeoNomis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, LeoNomis, 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:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! gren グレン ^? 15:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

1 Islam
2 Image copyright problem with Image:Switzerland100francs1996.jpg
3 Image copyright problem with Image:Switzerland200francs1996.jpg
4 Shukran
5 Why all these redirects and dictdef notices?
6 Minor vs. Major edits
7 First generation computer has been proposed for deletion.
8 W. Adrian Loader
9 Purshia tridentata
10 Arthur Rudolf Hantzsch
11 tyrant flycatcher
12 WikiProject France
13 Gemmail
14 Grimmiales
15 AAPE
16 CHICOTW - AT&T Corporate Center past editor

[edit] Islam

I see you working on Islamic articles—an area where I also hang around. Enjoy your stay and if you have any questions ask. gren グレン ^? 15:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Switzerland100francs1996.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Switzerland100francs1996.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 05:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Switzerland200francs1996.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Switzerland200francs1996.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 01:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shukran

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Shukran, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Importance). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Shukran. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. deeptrivia (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why all these redirects and dictdef notices?

Why are you creating all of these pages with just Template:Wi? The purpose of this template is to stop the creation of dictionary definitions, not to newly create empty pages which no one has ever and likely will never make a dictdef for. —Centrx→talk • 04:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm just going over Wikipedia:List of encyclopedia topics, but some topics don't make for much of an article, such as vamoose. Rather than leaving the default empty page, using {{wi}} points the user to what little information there is on the article, and serves as a modest base, should there ever be some new information to expand the subject with. At any rate, as you've been around longer, I trust your judgement, so what would you do if you came across "vamoose" as a red link, either in an article or in a list of missing articles? Maybe you can help me find a better solution. --LeoNomis 08:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how Wikipedia:List of encyclopedia topics was generated, but it contains many items that are not "encyclopedia topics", such as its many dictionary words. If, in a proper article, I find a redlink: If it is a common merely functional word, rather than an encyclopedic subject, then I would unlink it. If it is an encyclopedic subject, the redlink actually serves to indicate to editors that there is some gap. Example: If I, the reader, know about "foo" and I read an article that has the blue link "foo", I may not click on it because I already know about foo. If I see a redlink, however, I may click on it to create an article with that information. If I, the reader, do not know about foo, then seeing a redlink I know I will not find information about it there. With a blue link, I click on it and find that there is actually no encyclopedic information about. Readers mostly expect to find encyclopedic information in links. Another thing, for example with respect to Vamoose: The only real article that links to that page actually is referring to a band with that name. Aside from a reader thinking there is already at least a minimal article on the band, a naive user may click on it and be confronted with a message that mainly tells them not to create an article there, when they may otherwise have created an article about the band.

It may be a good idea to do what Britannica, for example, does: the reader can double-click on any word in an article there and up comes the dictionary definition. This is a major change though that affects all of Wikipedia. Likewise, something could be added to the no-article-found message, informing the user that they could try looking at Wiktionary. This, again, could be a more effective, more uniform solution. The logical result of adding this template or creating redirects for every dictionary word and capitalization variants of various terms is hundreds of thousands of mostly unused pages. What is done instead is that redirects and the dictionary template are used only where it has come up with a problem. Some pages get new articles created with dictionary definitions all the time and then are deleted all the time. Some spelling variations and errors are very common and warrant a redirect. This is not the case for every conceivable word and every conceivable spelling or capitalization variation.

The disambiguation pages and the other introductory pages you are creating are great. Even if there is no real harm done with the redirects and the dictdefs, it is probably more productive to do something else. —Centrx→talk • 09:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean about people thinking that an article already exists because it's blue. I'll be more careful when creating dicdefs (if at all), by checking what links to it exactly. Likely I'll use {{wiktionary}} from now on, along with a stub/disambig on what else the article could be. --LeoNomis 14:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor vs. Major edits

When creating a new article, even if it is short or a disambiguation page, it is probably better not to mark it as minor. While it is appropriate to mark new redirects as minor, these others are real pages created from scratch and it would be better for more people to see them, as "minor" will hide the edit depending on a user's preferences. —Centrx→talk • 09:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I mark my edits as minor by default because they're usually rather small, but I'll try being more objective. --LeoNomis 14:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First generation computer has been proposed for deletion.

I have proposed the deletion for an article that was originally created by you on the grounds of it being a generally unhelpful and unencyclopedic reference; a better one is available at history of computing hardware and I believe "first computer" and "first generation computer" should redirect to this article instead. If you would like to contest the proposed deletion, please see here. Robert K S 09:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Along the lines of many "wiki-specialists" who are sucking up articles and making them disappear: If you can't say in: 1-, 2-, or 3- paragraphs on a page,-(the original article, then ==See To==: to "History") ...instead of "Eating-up-and-making-disappear" an article. ....then I am speechless. This goes on a list of List of articles or categories in wikipedia absorbed by default. Pick a different title for this, but I see this as quite a fault. And there used to be some discussion of the "First Generation Computers", and I, Me, I don't get to evaluate it unless I can somehow retrieve it through a Log. Other people don't see the loss because they don't know there was an actual Article. Too bad for them.

Like I say unless you've made it abundantly apparent in the "History of the Computer", no one would ever know (that there was once an article, and that it doesn't deserve to exist). And obviously the "First Generation Computer" is now a veerrryyyy small part of the "history of the computer". I am being defensive about this because I have seen this in relation to things that I.. have personally done (and attemted to correct), or in things about things I have done, (which has now destroyed an original article). Obvious merges, and redirects, are out there. I suspect that this was not one of them. (I prematurely made a shirwreck article that was merged (a spelling mistake of mine), but a better article emerged (not mine)). from the ArizonaDeserts... --Mmcannis 17:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

And I am not going to read the "History of the Computer", but I would have read the First generation computer..... SonoranDesertMan... --Mmcannis 17:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] W. Adrian Loader

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article W. Adrian Loader, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:W. Adrian Loader. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Pascal.Tesson 19:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purshia tridentata

I, too, had noticed the "Deer Bush" reference and thought that it was Deer brush. I am displeased with some wiki-types (not your article on "First generation computer"), who suck up other articles. I expect to see more of it. People go out to a website and read, and basically cannot know what they are really reading, unless they already have a "pyramid"-base-of-knowledge related to it.

I recently(in the past year) had made some Notes to Saltation. It has now developed into twin articles. and (sic) i affected the In situ article rather dramatically. It was basically a one paragraph article when I first found it, and I was doing Egyptian hieroglyphs and Cuneiform-(plus about 30 Amarna letters and the Rosetta Stone, Decree of Canopus-soon to be merged ?) so the history of Items-Found was often "In-situ". Anyhow, got to your talk page because Purshia tridentata is now on my, quite extensive watch list. Take care, (and make even some short cogent articles, if a redirect is in doubt. If you can figure out the correct category, It will be attendend to within days or weeks, maybe by a "pseudo-expert"(like Me, ha,ha).. from the ArizonaDeserts --Mmcannis 17:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Rudolf Hantzsch

Hi LeoNomis,

I noticed you recently created the article about Arthur Rudolf Hantzsch. I just wanted to let you know that you can announce any new Germany-related articles at Portal:Germany/New article announcements and Portal:Germany/New articles. That way other users interested in the topic can see them and might improve them.

You may also be interested in the WikiProject Germany.

Thanks,

--Carabinieri

[edit] tyrant flycatcher

I've restored the full text for the time being, as the new Elaenia article has no context or references, and no genus author in the taxobox. I don't mind fleshing it out if you don't want to, but I'm very busy, so it won't be for a few days. jimfbleak 17:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject France

Hello! We are a group of editors working to improve the quality of France related articles. You look like someone who might be interested in joining us in the France WikiProject and so I thought I'd drop you a line and invite you! We'd love to have you in our project :-) STTW (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gemmail

I think it might be better to add the information on Gemmail to the Stained glass article, mostly because I do not think that there is enough on the subject to expand it (mostly because the Gemmail article on the French Wikipedia hasn't expanded since its creation) ::mikm t 18:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grimmiales

A tag has been placed on Grimmiales, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Wodup 05:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AAPE

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article AAPE, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Fram 09:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CHICOTW - AT&T Corporate Center past editor

	Chicago Collaboration of the Week
In the past you have edited AT&T Corporate Center. This week it has been selected as the WikiProject Chicago Collaboration of the week. Each week a Chicago related article in need of attention is selected as the Chicago COTW. Feel free to come help us improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. Your input in future selections would also be appreciated. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list.
	Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago