User talk:Mrwuggs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Grabthatgun.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Grabthatgun.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 00:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Organ2004.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Organ2004.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 13:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Fullsketch1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fullsketch1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] category deletion

Hello,

in order to delete a category, you need to use the WP:CFD process. Blanking a category does not delete it. 23:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your "Hypothetical..." astronomical bodies category work

Hi Mrwuggs,

No! stop trying to rename things while I am working! You can do that later! [etc]

Sorry if my attention was drawn to your (interesting) work before you've finished working on it. Have you seen these templates...?  If not, hopefully you'll find them useful in future!  Meanwhile, let me know once you've finished your current work on these categories so I may amend the Categories for Discussion page accordingly. If you're not already aware of it, you may find Category naming conventions a useful reference. Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am glad you are interested. This is some crazy stuff. You wanted to know a little more about the category work I was doing. Here is a breakdown...
If you really want to help out, start reading Sitchin's crazy books...
Thanks for your message and some insight into your work!  As you may've seen from the threads near your own on my talk page, I'm already heavily involved in some WP:WPCSub work, which, though less interesting, I feel I ought to try to complete. (See also here.) I hope, however, that you/CfD are able to settle on some good names for the categories. If you'd like any comments, opinions or the like in passing, feel free to leave another message!  Yours, David (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't add all of your categories of hypothetical objects to an article, as you recently did with Vulcanoid asteroid. One or two might work, but, for example, any Vulcanoids that exist are most definitely not dwarf planets. Michaelbusch 16:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, asteroids or planetoids are minor planets, according to the article. Minor planets in our solar system are now termed dwarf planets.
The first sentence is correct. The second is not. If you consult the dwarf planet article, or the IAU resolution on which that article is based, you will find that a dwarf planet is defined as a object large enough to be in a good approximation to hydrostatic equilibrium, but small enough that it does not dominate the orbits of objects around it. This leads to Pluto, Eris, various other KBOs, and 1 Ceres being termed dwarf planets. Anything smaller than several hundred km will generally not be in equilibrium, and is therefore not a dwarf planet. Minor planet, asteroid, or planetoid are all proper terms for any possible Vulcanoid, which cannot be more than a few tens of km across. Dwarf planet is not. Michaelbusch 17:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The only hypothesized dwarf planets I am aware of that could reasonably exist are various types of Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud Objects. Mike Brown likes to suggest Mars-sized objects at several hundred AU. However, this is already discussed in the Sedna article, among others.

[edit] I apologize

I didn't intend to be unhelpful. It is my experience as someone who uses categories as navigational aids quite a bit, that "ideal" categorial breakdowns with separate categories for every possible intersection of possibilities (including those that don't exist, like "hypothetical extrasolar minor planets") are the reverse of helpful.

Here's what I want out of a category: I want to be able to go there and instantly find a reasonably large number of related items that I can quickly scan and choose relevant articles to search. Categories that are large enough to break across pages are generally not helpful, but a category can easily contain links to as many as fifty articles and still be helpful.

Here's what I don't want: I don't want to go to a category, not find what I'm looking for, only to find that it's nested two or three deep in a bunch of tiny little categories that may contain only one to five articles each. The point of a category is to bring together comparable articles, not to split them apart. And the more clicks you need to make to get to the article you want to find, the less useful they are. For instance, Vulcan (hypothetical planet) and Vulcanoid asteroid are clearly closely related concepts, but under an "ideal" scheme that separates hypothetical planets and hypothetical minor planets, they are in different categories and cannot instantly be compared.

I realize that my actions may have frustrated you, but my goal is a more user-friendly Wikipedia. I trust that you have the same goal, and will consider constructing your categories in such a way as to make them more user friendly.

Yours, RandomCritic 16:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I don't agree with your approach. The "just going a step up the ladder" is, for me, a nuisance that frustrates the entire point of categories. I understand that your categorization system is consistent and well thought out, from a purely schematic point of view. It is also entirely impractical. As I said, a category can easily hold as many as 50 articles because it does not take much time to scan them and find what one needs, or what one might be interested in looking at. Having to go up, down, and across many chains of nested categories is frustrating, extremely time-consuming, makes it very easy to overlook an article or a whole category -- and is quite pointless if you're not entranced by schematic beauty in and of itself. I wish you would agree to a simpler scheme with fewer categories. RandomCritic 17:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Your critique can have merit and you still can be over-detailing your category system. I think it will be fine if there is a category for hypothetical solar system objects and a category for hypothetical extrasolar objects -- although frankly I think "hypothetical" is being used a bit broadly, and there's a distinction to be made between things like Neith and Themis, which had at least a grain of scientific backing for them, and things which border on fiction, like Nibiru, Tiamat and Gaga. But perhaps that involves a value judgment. Anyway, there might be a happy medium between one mass category for all hypothetical objects, and a system so finely detailed that it has categories for things that are unlikely ever to exist.
I don't follow you when you talk about Pluto; Pluto's a real object (whatever it's called), why should it be in a hypothetical category? And since "dwarf planet" as a category didn't exist until last month (and only applies to real objects within our solar system), why should one expect any hypothetical object to fall into that category? Certainly nothing Sitchinesque would. RandomCritic 20:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category "Hypothetical Solar System Stars"

I don't think that this category is useful, because it can have only one element. Nemesis as a star is generally used to mean any hypothetical companion to the Sun. Michaelbusch 18:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page moves

Please discuss massive page moves such as you did to Earth, Venus, Uranus and other planets before you make them. Additionally, do not perform copy-paste moves such as you did with 1 Ceres. All of these actions may get you blocked for disruption. Ryūlóng 21:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Blackmoon.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Blackmoon.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Tiamat.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Tiamat.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 28 September 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lilith (hypothetical moon), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] CFD tags

Stop deleting WP:CFD tags, that could be construed as vandalism. 70.51.11.250 06:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] category parenting

Categories require supercategories (parents), you cannot have a category without one. If you want to delete a category, please see WP:CFD. 70.51.11.250 06:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] please do not vandalize the categories

Please do not vandalize the categories. 70.51.11.250 06:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] redirecting categories

Please do not use "#redirect" to redirect categories. It does not work properly. Instead issue a request for redirection at WP:CFD. 70.51.11.250 07:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] do not copy and paste or blank pages

Please do not copy and paste articles, and leave an edit summary when you do anything like that. 70.51.11.250 07:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop editing astronomy-related categories

I would like to ask you to stop working on astronomical categories for a while. I understand that your work on astronomy-related categories is well intentioned, but you appear to be causing a few problems with the categories in Wikipedia. Some of the categories that you have created are not useful and have been nominated for deletion, and some of your categories duplicate other existing categories. This all creates confusion. You may want to review some of the comments on your work on this talk page and on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects. A lot of people now think that your work is causing harm to Wikipedia. I therefore would like to ask that you take a break from editing with categories.

Instead of creating new categories or revising existing categories, just take a look at what is currently available at Wikipedia. I suggest that you study the categories carefully for a month or so before making changes. When you do make changes, plan your work carefully before making revisions or adding new categories.

Thank you, George J. Bendo 07:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on removing maintenance notices

Please do not remove maintenance notices from pages unless the required changes have been made. If you are uncertain whether the page requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the page's talk page before removing the notice from the page. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a page. Thank you.

[edit] Tiamat (disambiguation)

It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed content from Tiamat (disambiguation). Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. -- JHunterJ 18:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Wikipedia articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- JHunterJ 18:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tiamat image

The image you uploaded, called Tiamat.gif, simply is not Tiamat. The original artwork for that shows a penis on the creature. Tiamat was female. A number of very unscholarly sources continue an error that was made in some books more than a century back, but we should not repeat them here. Plus you labeled it public domain old crediting an artist from Babylonia, except the image was line art. Somebody made that line art image. Redrawings get new copyrights, so we don;t know if that art is public domain without an actual source given.

And, in general, I think you are rushing too fast to add info on some fringe scientific theories without following WP:NPOV policy and so forth. You should really step back and learn some more about how Wikipedia works before spending too much time making things other people will just have to edit extensively or remove. DreamGuy 23:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1181 Lilit name

It looks like you created the 1181 Lilit article. Another user thought that the name was misspelled and proposed renaming the article; the debate will probably end sometime around 8 October. Could you comment on your choice for the original article name (specifically whether it was mistyped or whether it was spelled "Lilit" intentionally). Just for your own reference, note that the official name used by the Minor Planet Center is "Lilith", as can be seen here, for example. Thank you, George J. Bendo 22:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On November 9, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Central Fire, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TIAMAT (acronym)

Welcome to Wikipedia! We could really use your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as TIAMAT (acronym)) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Charles 18:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Agartha - Secrets of the Subterranean Cities, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
If you do not want to receive bot-generated messages on your talk page, please consider using the nobots template on your user talk page

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Tiamat.gif

Thank you for uploading Image:Tiamat.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. MECU≈talk 22:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/r/w/User_talk%7EMrwuggs_1ae3.html"