User talk:Lgh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Line 2 Response 3 Archive box 4 Despite 5 Bide a while 6 Grovel 7 sofixit, dude 8 Local wikipedia 9 Vocative prophet etc 10 One for you? 11 African currency 12 Victoria Island? 13 About Hermae 14 use this if you like 14.1 Regarding edits made during September 29, 2006 (UTC) to Acne vulgaris 14.2 Re editing acne 15 Esperanza 16 'Twas just by grace I'm on today 17 Poetry 18 Stuckists

[edit] Line

Archives
Archive 1

[edit] Response

Things get sorted out. If you feel the article isn't right, try to improve it, or suggest how it can be improved on the talk page. If you still think it isn't right after a couple of months, then you can try another AfD, but you might like to consider carefully the reasoning in the first AfD. If you feel the process in the latter was not correct, check out Wikipedia:Deletion review. There are always differences of opinion and evaluation in some circumstances, particularly when something is no 100% clear cut. If you feel strongly, you might want to contribute on the talk page of WP:VANITY to change the policy. However, wiki doesn't work by rules. The rules emanate from wiki, and may be out of sync. They are a reference point though, but not a trap.

To save me saying it all over again, you might like to check out my post on User talk:Cherylktardif. 'Striking' is highly recommended. Oblige to a certain extent. Happy editing!

Tyrenius 06:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archive box

If you don't want it, feel free to delete - or keep it for when you do. Tyrenius 21:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Despite

Despite the clear guidelines given in VANITY section, there appears little will by administrators to delete articles that are plainly vanity in nature. Articles by writers who have only published work through the vanity press, for example (something anyone with an average income can do), who further link their articles to websites promoting themselves, who refer to works that are in preparation and who bolster their reputation by listing very minor achievements as though they were noteworthy (such as a 'health and beauty column' in a local newspaper), still manage to get their articles voted to be kept in Wikipedia. So, until there is a blanket and well-enforced policy of deletion by the criteria outlined above, Wikipedia will continue to be padded out with useless froth rather than incisive and reliable information about noteworthy subjects. It may be argued that there is nothing wrong with indulging this sort of activity because it does the writers little good in the long run, but that is avoiding the central question: of what value is Wikipedia? If the answer is that it is a universally accessible database of noteworthy items to which anyone can contribute then there needs to be rigour in the assessment of that input before it gets included. If, on the other hand, all sorts of things are allowed to 'slide on in' on the basis that it can't really hurt anyone and doesn't really do the writers any good, then the Wikipedia will become simply an advertising forum for the unaccomplished or those wishing to promote peculiar points of view.

DESPITE someone - probably an administrator with a guilty conscience - deleting the above article from the Vanity talk page I have rescued it and put it here. I withdraw the preceding comment and have struck it through.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lgh (talk • contribs) .

Lgh, I think the above addresses some very important issues and would like to see it returned to WP:VAIN. I do note that it was removed from the project page and not the talk page, perhaps the appropriate place. I hope I can encourage you to place it in the latter. As to the identity of the person who made the edit, I can't help but notice that it is their only contribution to Wiki. Victoriagirl 15:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey you! Administrators are not allowed to delete vanity articles if there is even an assertion of notability in them. Check out WP:SPEEDY. If there is, then it can be prod'd and if that notice is removed (which anyone can do) it has to go to WP:AfD, where the community decides whether it is going to be deleted or not, and it is the admin's job to evaluate the consensus, not to over-ride it. If that happens, then someone will simply propose it for WP:DRV, where the admin will get it in the neck if they have not followed the proper process, thank you.

It is probably not the best tactic to accuse the whole administrative body of bad faith! Having looked at the AfD for the article you presumably have in mind, I fail to find any evidence of your cogent argument above or any evidence of yourself participating, so you can hardly blame the administrator or the other participants for not being swayed by your arguments! From my experience of such matters, your participation might well have achieved a different outcome. People are doing their best (believe it or not!) but everyone has limitations and are not über-specialists.

The criteria you are arguing for are already in place, and are frequently levelled in the appropriate direction, sometimes excessively so. AfD tends to be more biased to delete than keep, I would say. I have had to work hard at times to keep articles with a sound content. If you think there is an excess of "useless froth", then you are most welcome to propose it for deletion, bearing in mind of course that your poison may well be someone else's meat. We have to accommodate a broad spectrum. The criterion which you suggest is in force, "it can't really hurt anyone and doesn't really do the writers any good" is not generally held.

As you have less than 300 edits on your account, it suggests that your experience of the ways of wiki is not extensive. I would think this to be the case, as the problems you cite are ones that are generally recognised, and the solutions you advocate are either in place already, or considered to be desirable by most responsible users. It seems to me that you have focused on one article out of 1,352,338 (at the moment I write) to extrapolate your conclusions.

There are about 900 admins, but half dormant and most of the work done by a very small number (which I would think I'm not in). If I recall correctly, there are getting on for 1,500 deletions every day! Check out the worst culprits on Category:Speedy. There are around 12,000 articles every week added to wikipedia on top of those. There is a massive backlog of jobs, including over 7,000 images with copyright problems. Just for interest, there is an analysis of one day's AfDs, which shows most were deleted, many for lack of notability.

Why you should think your post on the WP:VAIN page was removed "probably an administrator with a guilty conscience" is beyond me. An administrator would have a guilty conscience if s/he had not removed it, bearing in mind the text at the top states clearly, "When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." Look before you leap? We generally like to AGF round here, by the way. (I have retrieved your deleted post from the history and put it in the proper place - on the talk page of the guideline.)

Anyway, having said all that, your desire to improve the standard of the encyclopedia is most commendable, and you are of course welcome to fully participate in all of the processes. I guess one way to find things out quickly is by jumping into the middle of things, but don't be surprised if you jump on some brambles by mistake! You can actually do what you want, as long as it is within reasonable bounds. You don't have to wait for an admin. If you don't like an article, change it. If you think something's unverified and false, delete it. If you think the whole article should be deleted, then there are three options:

• WP:SPEEDY if it's a complete no-hoper
• Wikipedia:Proposed deletion if you don't think it will be contested
• Wikipedia:Deletion process for WP:AfD (articles for deletion).
• Also check out Wikipedia:Guide to deletion

If you feel that strongly about something you can have it on AfD within 5 minutes. Of course, it will look odd if it's only just been through AfD, but you can still do it, and if you make a strong case as to why you are doing it, then it stands a chance of being allowed. Probably best to wait a couple of weeks at least, and also to leave a note on the article talk page about the improvements that need to be made to the article, as this will give credibility to the nomination.

There's a common saying on wikipedia: sofixit. To see the whole message as if by magic copy and paste the following into your edit box and save it:

{{subst:sofixit|whatever you think is wrong}}

Happy days!

Tyrenius 21:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bide a while

In peace and thankfulness. Or some such bollocks... But let's do the biding, anyway: I have not been lax, but dust needs to settle before this gets discussed at Notability of Books, to make sure everyone is cool, calm and very, very collected. More anon. ;-) Jacky

[edit] Grovel

Well, that made me laugh. You have a way with words obviously. I shall watch your wikicareer with interest... Tyrenius 22:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sofixit, dude

Thank you for your suggestion regarding whatever you think is wrong! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Lgh 09:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Local wikipedia

I am not sure I understand your proposal. I take the fact that wikipedia exists in many languages as a fact, because it is already so, and advocate putting local (linguistic area) interest stuff in the wiki of the language used by those cultures whose members are most likely to find them of interest so as not to clutter servers with trivial information that will be consulted once in a blue moon. However, establishing individual wikipedia for each country and dumping "local stuff" there and nowhere else? I just don't see what sense it makes to do so. Information pertaining to speakers of one language should be easy to access to any speaker of that language, no matter where he's from, that's the point of the internet. Also, JackyR's argument that the purpose of an encyclopedy is to give access to the sum total of human knowledge has merit, and the main reason I want to distinguish trivial interest and local interest knowledge from just knowledge is because of base and practical reasons : that the storage space of wikipedia computers and contributors' number and available time are not infinite, so the ideal of a sum total is not practical.

I fail to see how your point is particularly desirable, or how its implementation would improve wikipedia and its functioning however. Maybe you should be a little more clear? and what does JackyR (or the community at large for that matter) think of it? Do you discuss it with other people somewhere? --Svartalf 00:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your post concerning the above. I think you have a valid point, and you could bring it up on the Village Pump. I am concerned that material about one country may not be properly evaluated by people from other countries. There is probably a need to address this within Wiki anyway. Tyrenius 00:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't follow you Lgh. On one hand you say you want to crack down on vanity articles and other nonnotable stuff, on the other you say you want to break down wikipedia into local units, which will make it smaller scale and mechanically lower the notability threshold. Joe Bloggs, editor of the Outback Ridge Bugle, from NSW may not be worthy of note as a journalist worldwide, but if you create a WP: Australia, he'll likely rate it... and honestly, if it rates any English language WP, I just don't see why or how it should be segregated from other English language WP stuff. The beauty of the net is going to one site and finding what you look for, not having to decide beforehand just where you'll look, because looking in the wrong places will yield nothing (I have enough trouble finding the right book when looking for references in printed media). As tyrenius suggests, I suspect the village pump or other broader forum with room for making ideas clear and exploring all sides of the matter is the proper move to make next, especially as this regards all wikipedia, not just the two of us.. --Svartalf 02:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

(just a quick note to say I've removed your suggestion from the Community Bulletin Board. The Village pump (proposals) is the place to suggest new proposals and ideas. Thanks :) --Quiddity 04:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC) (no problem at all. was just an "FYI" :)

Oh boy. Actually, I'd be really against Wikipedia having country-by-country wikis, for the reasons given above of a) being able to find info in one place (otherwise the Oz.wiki might have the better article on Calcium carbonate and the India.wiki the best one on slaked lime); and b) having enough users for material to be properly evaluated.

My original take on this was that we shouldn't be trying to divide knowledge by the language, location or presumed "culture" of the writer/reader. I obviously wrote it badly, as it's obvious that no encyclopedia, or other publication, can contain all knowledge ever and that there must be some test of "notability". My argument was (supposed to be) that the same standards should therefore be applied across the encyclopedia; rather than a barely notable American radio presenter being included in en.wiki but a barely notable Indian one excluded. I mean, what possible justification is there for that? En.wiki is as much the "local" wiki for India as it is for the US, Ireland, Hong Kong, Australia, South Africa, Canada... And then again, someone may be notable in Europe across multiple languages but of no interest in the Caribbean. And if anyone thinks articles on non-notable people should be thrown off one wiki to another, can I suggest fr.wiki embrace the Canadian Cheryl Kaye Tardif, who by my standards does not rate a place on en.wiki (sorry to bring her up again).

You all see the problem. But Lgh, it's really good that you've proposed this. Because if it get sunk (as I'm afraid I hope it will), then I hope the undiscussed practice (by many editors) of setting such artificial boundaries to knowledge will be knocked on the head. And if WP can't possibly accommodate all the barely-notables of level X from across the world, that's a good reason for it not accommodating any of them! Raise the bar! Which is the area in which I'd prefer to tackle this problem.

I should add that my opinion on all this is informed by the the experience of several mathematician friends, each of whom slogged for months over their particular theory or proof, only to discover the work had already been done/disproven and published - in another language. And by annoyance at the way localised theories/paradigms build up in many fields (not necess academic), which would be either advanced or blown out of the water by contact with other countries'/languages'/cultures' takes on the same issues.

Oh dear. Have I now annoyed everyone? Let's see how it all pans out. :-) JackyR | Talk 18:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, your mention of Cheryl K Tardif belonging in the Fr.Wiki is precisely the point: she's plainly an anglophone and has not shown any evidence of bing interested in French language or culture. She belongs in a Canadian Wiki. Ta-Da! Lgh 23:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You know that I'm French and live in France, yet I spend most of my wiki time on the English wiki, if only because the likelihood of finding the article I'm looking for, and the general completeness and quality of articles (with some exceptions, of course) is better. --Svartalf 10:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vocative prophet etc

I deliberately don't state any personal preferences in regard to art on my user page, as one of the problems in contemporary arts coverage is a divide between the "radicals" and the "traditionalists", with the tendency for POV-pushing, which is obviously not acceptable on Wiki. It is not helpful to have any overt affiliation, I feel, one way or the other. I've stated my general interest in contemporary art, particularly in the UK. At one point I did quite a lot of work (and I hope a good job) on the Stuckists. I have also created a number of new articles on the YBAs and Turner Prize winners, some of whom didn't have any article on them at all, which I thought was a severe deficiency. I added a lot of research to Damien Hirst too. I hope you'll be able to contribute to contemporary art articles, as editors there are thin on the ground. Check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Colen, and see what you feel about it. Tyrenius 04:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One for you?

Has all your favourites in it.[1] Tyrenius 03:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] African currency

I've taken one off and put one on. It read like an essay. Study another currency article to use as a model. Tyrenius 05:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It's called research! Hey, read my message above. See how others have done it: Currency, South African rand. Not that they bother with references. Anyway, have a look round! Google here and here for two examples. Anyway, a few more wikilinks would be OK. Tyrenius 04:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Victoria Island?

Saw your post on Vicgirl's page, and since I'm from BC originally, I thought I may have some info for you. FYI, it's actually called VANCOUVER Island, not Victoria Island. :) Victoria is a city and the capital of British Columbia. See [2] It is also BUTCHART Gardens, not 'Burchardt'. See [3]

Whale watching is very popular on the island, as well as visiting the gardens and the Gulf Islands. I highly recommend Salt Spring Island.

If you are looking for accomodations, there are a ton of Bed & Breakfasts. One of my friends runs Qualicum Bay Bed & Breakfast. See [4]. It's absolutely beautiful and he will rent out the entire house to families or groups. My father stayed there while recuperating from a heart attack. If you're going anytime other than summer, bring a raincoat. And even in the summer you may need it, but Victoria is known to get some hot spells.

Victoria is also an artist town, so be sure to stop by the galleries. You should enjoy that. (Cherylktardif 05:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC))

Hi, Lgh. I, too, am assuming that you mean Vancouver Island. The whole thing is really quite confusing, Victoria, the provincial capitol being on Vancouver Island, while Vancouver, the province's largest city, is on the mainland. Just to confuse matters, there is a Victoria Island (it's huge!) in the Canadian Arctic. I'm with Cherylktardif, the Gulf Islands and whale watching are essential to any trip. I might recommend Tofino and nearby Long Beach. Don't know when you're expecting to visit; most choose the summer, but my favourite time to visit Tofino is the winter. The storms are dramatic, but not everyone's cup of tea. I can't really recommend any particular book - I suppose any reputable travel publisher would do. No special permits required. Happy travels! Victoriagirl 15:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Hermae

Hi, would you mind telling me where you got this information? Thanks, Haiduc 02:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You would not be thinking of this image by any chance, would you? I am minded to think that you are on to something regarding Hermes, since he is credited with the invention of masturbation, but of course the reference, should you find it, should clinch the thing. Regards, Haiduc 03:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] use this if you like

^[1]

[edit] Regarding edits made during September 29, 2006 (UTC) to Acne vulgaris

Please stop. If you continue to blank pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ryūlóng 04:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re editing acne

If it was an honest mistake, there's nothing to worry about. Regards and good editing. --Húsönd 04:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Esperanza

Howdy, good to hear from you. Dunno much about Esperanza, tho they sound like a cool bunch: are you thinking of signing up? In between writing about the history of masturbation (above), of course. How do you know these things?! On second thoughts, don't answer that... :-P JackyR | Talk 02:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Twas just by grace I'm on today

Hi there - you nearly had a long wait for an answer. I'm on WP irregularly at the moment due to assorted shit (including the death of my 6-year-old nephew. It's kinda hard to get up enthusiasm for much right now...).

Anyway. Yeah, redirects. Create a new article Grace notes by clicking on that red link (usually the quickest way, I find). Then paste in "#REDIRECT [[Grace note]] {{R from plural}}". That should do it.

In fact, I have a load of such "Redirect for Reason X" templates under User:JackyR#Useful stuff. There are more at Wikipedia:Redirect.

But it may be frowned on to create a redirect for such a simple plural. I tried searching for "grace notes", and got this: the appropriate article being top of the list. I know Search is sometimes broken (in which case doing a Google search for "Wikipedia grace notes" would probably find it), but I'm not sure that's a good reason for adding a redirect. But if you feel strongly – and can defend your decision should anyone cavil – then go ahead!

Hope all well with you, JackyR | Talk 21:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poetry

Hi Lgh, Thank you for your kind offer. If you could post your email address Id be pleased to send my (traditional) address. Thanks! Victoriagirl 16:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stuckists

I think I'm replying to the right place! It's a bit confusing when (presumably) you edit with an IP address. I don't think I was recommending the Stuckists, merely saying that they were one of the art areas I had edited in, along with the other UK contemporary art subjects that were thin on the ground. I've been working through various areas including Turner Prize nominees who had a lot of red links (less now). I like to edit on both sides of an issue, and tend to find each side thinks I'm on the other side, which I guess must mean I'm getting it right. I don't think being on sides is what wikipedia is about, so it's not a place where I express my own opinions. I'm more interested in writing informative articles from a NPOV. I'm afraid I will have to leave you to sort out the Stuckists for yourself. :) (Nothing wrong with Jordaens though.) Tyrenius 00:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean you were saying I was POV in my editing (and I'm glad you think I'm not!). I'm just saying wiki isn't a place where I discuss personal views on things. However, FYI pictures on my user page have ranged from Duchamp and Picasso to Breughel and Rubens. As you can see, I'm fairly catholic in my tastes... (and you're still not logged in, by the way). Tyrenius 02:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Eclectic - takes one to recognise one? You seem a man of many accomplishments! Tyrenius 00:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)