User talk:Rhombus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey there! Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like this place--I sure do--and want to stay. If you need help on how to title new articles check out Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and The FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check The Village pump or The Reference Desk! Happy wiki-ing! Alexandros

Contents 1 re: Links 2 Karla Homolka 3 who/whom 4 Anthropoid 5 James Dean 6 re: Talk pages 6.1 re: Isaac Brock

[edit] re: Links

Let me also welcome you to Wikipedia and add my thanks for your edits to the various beekeeping articles. I did just revert one of the edits you made on Africanized honeybee. You changed [[Almond]]s to [[Almond|almonds]]. I assume you were fixing the capitalization error which no one else seems to have caught. While that change works, the piped link can be confusing for future reader/editors. The easier way to fix it was to change [[Almond]]s to [[almond]]s.

Wikipedia's mark-up language automatically extends the link to all subsequent letters in the word. Thus, Almond, Almonds and Almondine all link to the same place (though the link does not extend for Almond's because of the apostrophe). You can confirm that by floating your mouse over the link briefly. Second, while capitalization is important for Wikipedia links, they turned that requirement off for the first letter. Almond and almond both link to the same place though aLmond does not.

I hope I'm not being too forward sharing a tip that took me a while to figure out. Thanks again for your help. Rossami (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Karla Homolka

Hi. You are making a lot of good changes to Karla Homolka. Are you going to update Paul Bernardo? He was convicted for life of the crime but the story is only detailed on the Karla Homolka page. - Tεxτurε 19:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] who/whom

Just noticed an edit you made (edit to [[1]]). I think you should check it. "Whom" is not a correct replacement in all cases for "who" .

"The person who wrote the book" (as an example) is correct. "The person to whom I gave the book" is correct (who is also acceptable). In this case, your change doesn't seem correct, as the "who" isn't the recipient of an action. Hope that's understandable. Cheers. DavidH 21:17, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Saw your response; not absolutely convinced, because I'd parse it this way:

"The aircraft company described the employee as the one who did something" rather than "the one to whom something was done."

This, I suppose, is one reason why so many grammarians now accept "who" in all cases; even people who study language and write for a living (as I do) can become confused. Also, I'm an American writer, and it just isn't drilled into us to use "whom" except in phrases such as "to whom am I speaking?" DavidH 21:56, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anthropoid

Hi, thanx for the clean-up of the Operation Anthropoid!;) szalas

[edit] James Dean

Thanks for your cleanup to the [[James Dean] article.  :)

Monkeyman^(talk) 03:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Talk pages

Was talking about this:

This guy is seriously messed up -- it's obvious just from listening to the song lyrics. They're so angry and mean-spirited. Of course, if somebody abandoned you on the top floor of a flooded, uninhabitable home, you might be fucked up, too. --Rhombus 21:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

From here. I took it off of the page. If you want to say stuff like that, go to a music forum. Arnesh 11:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Isaac Brock

"This guy is seriously messed up -- it's obvious just from listening to the song lyrics. They're so angry and mean-spirited. Of course, if somebody abandoned you on the top floor of a flooded, uninhabitable home, you might be fucked up, too." isn't exactly "open discussion".
The policy doesn't lean towards comments like that, which don't help the article further along at all. You think that comment really helped the article? When it comes to this, I think it is best put as:
They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. or "Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues."

Also, did that comment do any of this at all? (Did you even read WP:TALK...?) Arnesh 21:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, I just don't see how that comment can help the article. Also if a comment is "uncivil", you may remove it. WP:CIVIL and WP:CIVIL#Removing_uncivil_comments. My point is, that comment was unnecessary and offensive. It didn't do any of this at all.

Did it:

• Communicate: If in doubt, make the extra effort so that other people understand you and you get a proper understanding of others. Being friendly is a great help. It is always a good idea to explain your views; it is less helpful for you to voice an opinion on something and not explain why. Giving an opinion helps in convincing others and reaching consensus.

• Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.

• Be positive: Article talk pages should be used for ways to improve an article, not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article. However, if you feel something is wrong, but aren't sure how to fix it, then by all means feel free to draw attention to this and ask for suggestions from others.

• Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material. (For an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the m:Wikibate proposal.)

• Deal with facts: The talk page is the ideal place for all issues relating to verification. This includes asking for help to find sources, comparing contradictory facts from different sources, and examining the reliability of references. Asking for a verifiable reference to support a statement is often better than arguing against it.

• Share material: The talk page can be used to store material from the article which has been removed because it is not verified, so that time can be given for references to be found. New material can sometimes be prepared on the talk page until it is ready to be put into the article.

• Discuss edits: The talk page is particularly useful to talk about edits. If one of your edits has been reverted, and you change it back again, it is good practice to leave an explanation on the talk page and a note in the edit summary that you have done so. The talk page is also the place to ask about another editor's changes. If someone queries one of your edits, make sure you reply with a full, helpful rationale.

• Make proposals: New proposals for the article can be put forward for discussion by other editors if you wish. Proposals might include changes to specific details, page moves, merges or making a section of a long article into a separate article.

In that link you sent me to WP:TALK#Others' comments, it says you may remove comments if they are uncivil. I don't know why you want to keep your comment in so badly, don't you agree that it was simply an unnecessary opininon that didn't help the article? That's why I removed it in the first place. Either way, I'm just tired of this arguement, we've carried this on for so long... Arnesh 13:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)