User talk:Sxeptomaniac
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
|
Kukini 06:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Shunning page edits
Heh... boy do I suck. Thanks for all the spelling fixes and such. I guess it was pretty late. --Christian Edward Gruber 16:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] consistent place names?
Do you really believe place names should have consistent names? No other category of article names in Wikipedia has such a policy. In fact, outside of the unfortunate practice of having consistent names for most (but not all) U.S. cities, no other category of place names has such a policy. No real encyclopedia has such a policy. The primary Wikipedia naming policy is used instead: the most used/recognizable name, which is never the case for [community, city, state]. Don't you think having this hokey policy makes Wikipedia look unprofessional? --Serge 00:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- How many "real" encyclopedias have to deal with the large number of articles that Wikipedia has? Places (as in geographic areas) are one thing, but communities are more of political entities (like cities) than geographical ones, so the articles should be named by a similar system. Secondly, we have to think ahead on this: a consistent system of naming communities helps head off ambiguous names before we have to deal with the issue.
- I think naming a community without listing city and state seems unprofessional. I predict [community, city, state] will have to be the standard for people who will eventually write articles on various Chinatown communities. If some communities will have to go by [community, city, state], we should probably seek to have it apply to as many as possible. Planning and consistency are traits of professionalism here, not just looking at what others are doing, because their situation may not apply.
- I don't really understand why some people want community names to stand alone so badly, myself. In cases, like La Jolla, where the community name is unique, a simple redirect will suffice, rather than seeking to move the entire article. Sxeptomaniac 07:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I did not see your response until today. Thank you. You can go to any number of on-line encyclopedias and search for just about any community name in Wikipedia, and you will find the article named as the community name, not according to the silly and ironically unconventional [[community, city, state]] format "convention". Search for La Jolla at encyclopedia.com, encarta.msn.com, and bartleby.com, for example.
-
- As to the argument that the convention allows for managing potential ambiguities in advance, there is limited utility in doing so, with benefits only for editors, none for readers, and in doing so useful information is lost for readers. The utility of doing so is limited because the rate at which new communities are created is very low, so the rate of change in this area is very low. If there is no ambiguity for a given community name today (like La Jolla), then there will probably be no ambiguity a year from now. For the few new communities that are created occasionally, ambiguity situations can be easily and effectively handled on an as-needed basis. As to the information lost for readers from disambiguating in advance... except for U.S. cities and communities, the Wiki standard is to disambiguate if and only if there is an actual disambiguity. That way, if the main article name is Name, then it is clear to the reader that there is no ambiguity. And if the article name is Name (disambiguity qualifier), usually with a link in italics to a disambiguity page, then that is useful information too. Per the current convention, the article names for San Francisco, California and Portland, Oregon, and thus any reference links to them, tell us nothing about whether there are other cities named San Francisco and Portland. However, if we used the standard Wiki convention for U.S. cities of disambiguating only when required, then readers would have that information in the articles names (and reference links) of San Francisco and Portland (Oregon). Disambiguating city and community names in advance benefits only editors, not readers, and even so the utility is marginal. At the same time, by disambiguating in advance, we are hiding potentially useful information from the reader. So disambiguating U.S. city and community names in advance arguably violates the overall principle of Wikipedia's naming conventions:
-
-
- Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.
-
-
- You say you think "naming a community without listing city and state seems unprofessional". In that case, ALL professional encyclopedias and other references must seem unprofessional to you. Do they? With all due respect, I suggest your perspective is skewed regarding what the professional standards are with respect to naming communities (and cities for that matter) in encyclopedias, newspapers, magazines, books and other standard reference publications. Regardless of how it seems to you, by any objective standard I can fathom, it is the current unique and unconventional Wiki naming conventions for U.S. cities and communities that are unprofessional.
-
- As to why some of us want community and city names to stand alone... it is simply because we want Wikipedia to have a professional appearance. Article names like La Jolla, San Diego, California, Los Angeles, California and Hollywood, Los Angeles, California are particularly hackish and unprofessional in appearance.
-
- I ask you to carefully consider what I have said here, and invite you to join me in an effort to professionalize Wikipedia in the realm of U.S. city and community article naming, just as it already is in most other areas. Let me know. Thank you for your time. --Serge 17:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Paradigm shifts can take time. Most people who are comfortable within one paradigm have difficulty seeing the other one, much less the benefits of it. The shift will take time, and someone has to get the ball rolling. Why not us? The avoiding ambiguity and having consistency-in-naming-formats values that you cite benefit editors, not readers. Our decisions are supposed to favor the experience of readers over editors. There is no value to a reader in a naming convention that is designed to avoid ambiguity "in advance" in a consistent fashion. Besides, there is nothing wrong or inconsistent with a naming policy that uses the most common name, except when there is an ambiguity, in which case disambiguity information is added in parenthesis in the name. In fact, that is the consistent naming convention used on practically every Wikipedia page outside the realm of U.S. cities and communities. Worse, following this artificial convention creates names that are amateurish/hokey in appearance (see: Hollywood, Los Angeles, California, blech!), which hinders the Wikipedia reader's experience. --Serge 22:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Eh, go ahead
I don't really care enought about the Soho beverage article to try and stage a recovery. Since it only had one other edit before you arrived, I'd say that if you think it should be canned, go for it. -Litefantastic 23:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] JUST A QUESTION ON RfC That you saw before editing Rotary International
Hello, we introduced an RfC at that link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Society%2C_law%2C_and_sex
that was REPLACED by the pro-Rotarian. Check History page please. Would you be so kind to say us : what was the text you read : - our original claim ? - or the text placed in replacement by BridesMill ? May we have your opinion on that replacement that bridesmill did (substitution) ? Thank you
Our original text was placed three times in three subjects for RfC : ethics, politics, society, just one was replaced. By which subject did you came to visit our discussion ? Was it by the page with the text that BridesMill substituted to ourse ? Salutations, thank you PierreLarcin2 20:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- OK Thanks for comment. We were here shocked that the edit war went on us at the RfC page even, so wondered if this could influence you. WA ask comment and WE do not see our work as it was presented aka "shortened" by the other party. WE DO NOT ASK like that.
Still being shocked. We let long things/comments on RfC because we do not want to hide multiple aspects 84.102.229.124 20:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Halo's RfA
 |
Sxeptomaniac... Thank you very much for your support in my request for adminship. Ultimately, no consensus was reached, and I failed to be promoted, but I am very grateful for your support. Sxeptomaniac, thank you very much for your support, and your confidence in me. Your supporting opinion was very encouraging. Yours, Thε Halo Θ |
- Hey Sxeptomaniac, thank you for the very kind offer of future support, after all your kindness already. It is very encouraging :) Thε Halo Θ 20:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Request for Mediation has been filed
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Neo-Fascism, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. - DNewhall 05:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Request for Mediation
 |
A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Neo-Fascism.
|
[edit] Crosscut saws
I noted that this is the second time that you write that western saws also cut on the pull stroke. This is not the case, as looking at any basic woodworking book would show. If you look at the geometry of a properly sharpened crosscut handsaw, you will see that it, at best, only scrapes on the pull stroke. Unless you had a buck saw instead of a cross-cut saw in mind, which is a different animal. Luigizanasi 01:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
