User talk:Tastemyhouse
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Don't be Afraid to Care User:Tastemyhouse
Welcome!
Hello, 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:
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
- Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
- If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Ragib 2 July 2005 03:46 (UTC)
[edit] Copying text when merging articles
When you copy+paste an article elsewhere, be sure to copy the source from the "edit this page" tab, rather the rendered output. Not doing so causes loss of some of the original wiki links and formatting. Also, it is recommended that you propose the merge and allow time for feedback before just doing a merge. The full process is described on WP:MM -- Bovineone 00:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for this info, though i dont know if you're going to look back here or if that was a semi-automated message. The help is appreciated all the same -- I would've waited but since neither page had a talk page it seemed like nobody would mind if i went ahead -- It was the first time i'd done any sort of page move, and i guess i bungled it a bit =) TastemyHouse 00:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- Simply because it had no talk page doesn't mean that people aren't willing to talk about proposed changes. I'm not sure I agree that merging was the right thing to do--after all, I originally split it from the main article not long ago. Bovineone 00:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
K. should we move this discussion the article's talk page? TastemyHouse 00:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Vandal-reverting grapes
[edit] My first barnstar!
If getting a barnstar was the best thing that happened to me today, does that make me a Wikipedia nerd? Thanks! Jasmol 08:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Hardcore (film)
No problem. :) tregoweth 10:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I can't take full credit; those aren't my sideburns. :) tregoweth 10:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Pls do not vandalize wikipedia anymore, one more time and you will be banned from editting. NObody wants to see gay sex on wikipedia. Thanks
[edit] Notability as a criterion
I saw your comment over at User talk:Dragonfiend about notability, and thought I'd chip in. As I see it, there's a group of people who feel that, for whatever reason, Wikipedia is better off including only things that are at least marginally well known--that is, notable, not just verifiable. Those people are supported with by another group for whom "notability" is simply a handy way to exclude, e.g., vanity articles about garage bands. Sure, you can't prove that "The Atomic Borscht Conspiracy" (or whoever) actually wrote that article about a group of kids playing the church basement; but it's easy to prove that they've never toured or sold albums. IMO, notability is so widespread because it's the easiest way to attack things that don't belong in WP for other reasons (original research, vanity, etc). Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Speedy Deletions...
heya ;] I just noticed you speedy'ing Dennis Smith (cat man). Couple pointers, if I may ;] When you speedy a page, {{db}} tends to be insufficient. {{db|reason for speedy}} lets the admins know why it should be deleted. Also, when you speedy an article, please do not blank it. One more quick note, if the article is already on AfD, it's usually best not to remove the AfD tags, especially when the article has only received two votes ;] If it were me, I'd add the speedy tags to the page, right below the AfD tags. Anyhow, good work out there, and thanks! ;] --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 10:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Pigs (Three Different Ones)
It isn't my contribution. I think it's User_talk: 152.163.100.201 who did this edit. But I have to admit that I don't understand why you moved the block of text. Floyd(Norway) 10:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Anarchism
I don't know if you are a bot or not...but please do not delete entire sections of the article without reference to the talkpage - It's considered vandalism - max rspct 18:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Cheers, no worries :) -max rspct 18:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Core Topics
Hi Tastemyhouse, below is a "cut & paste" of the message I left recently on Ahmed's user page. I'm glad you responded positively to my challenge! Since the original posting I have reviewed most of Maurreen's assessments. Would you like to have a look at assessing the articles beginning with the last one, which looks like Work to me?!!
Hi, thanks for signing up for the core topics project at WP1.0, I'm really glad to have someone else involved. Things have been very quiet there for the last month as User:Maurreen has been away and we also need to align our assessments better, but now you have joined us I think we should press on with the work. The WP 1.0 project is about to take off in a big way IMHO, and we need a core of basic articles ready for that. We are mainly assessing articles at present, I have been using these assessment criteria. Take a look at the ones already assessed to get a feel for it, then try assessing a few. Once that job is complete we need to either get interested people to address the shortcomings of the article or (as a last resort) fix the problems ourselves. Maurreen is a journalist (I think), so she should be able to write well on a variety of subjects, but we can realistically only bring a handful of neglected articles up to standard, not 150.
Thanks a lot, Walkerma 06:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
You Hooligan!!! Deliri 07:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
This is the assessment rubric. Why don't you try a dozen or so assessments, then I'll look over them and give you my ill-informed opinion! These aren't set in stone, we will all have different views. But remember your opinion is much better than no opinion, and we have to start somewhere! Many of the things we look for are clearcut, for example "hard" references (from properly published material, preferably peer reviewed, not just from mybigotedopinion.com and the like. I was going to suggest that 2-3 of this group review the entire list, so we can iron out any anomalous assessments. We can debate (nicely!) any we have strong disagreements about. Cheers, Walkerma 03:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Welcome back from your Wikibreak! While you've been away we have finished assessing the basic list, and we have a new person, User: Gflores who has been helping Maurreen, Ahmed and myself. Now we're now looking at which articles to take out or switch. In some cases we found the topics have stubs or starts, but it looks like the material is covered better in other articles. Could you give use your opinions on the specific articles in question here and here? Also, could you take a look at the jobs to be done and sign on for something? Thanks, Walkerma 17:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello Tastemyhouse, I am looking for people to support my article on Cum Dumpster. You defended cum fart, and I was hoping you would review it and vote. Thanks! --DigitalPimpette 17:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 1.0 Collaboration of the Week
Hi, I noticed you signed up as a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. Recently, a 1.0 Collaboration of the Week was created to work on essential topics that are in need of improvement, which will ultimately go in a release version of Wikipedia. You can help by voting, contributing to an article, or simply making a comment. Thank you for your support. :) Gflores Talk 07:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Version 1.0 "Release Version Qualifying"
Hi, I'm interested in your feedback on Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Qualifying. It's essentially an idea to use a process similar to WP:FAC to identify and handle articles and lists that would go in a release version. Maurreen 19:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WP 1.0
I thought since you are interested in this project you might be interested to see a CD version of en now exists see Wikipedia:Wikipedia-CD/Download & 2006 WP CD Selection. This is being discussed on the 1.0 project pages but progress breeds enthusiasm so I thought I would let you know. --BozMo talk 09:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Libya
Hi,
I've recently added Libya to the list of featured article candidates. Overall the candidature is going well with many of the objections now sorted out. The final concrete objection is with the article's prose. I have been the main contributor to the article and have been looking at it for the previous 9 - 10 months. My eyes no longer see it freshly, so I am not a suitable copy-editor!
To meet the final demand of copy editing, I have been advised to ask different people to edit parts of the article.
I would really love to get this article featured as you can probably see from the page's history! I've worked very hard on it and I see this as possibly being the final hurdle.
You can see the prose objections, mostly raised by Sandy, on the candidature page. If you have the time, please choose a section (Politics, Religion, Culture etc.) and copyedit, perfect, ace it! I would be very grateful with any help I can get.
Thanks a lot,
--Jaw101ie 16:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
