User talk:Caue.cm.rego/2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

moved from user_talk:Cawas --Cacumer 06:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Caue.cm.rego/2005, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Yes, Wear Sunscreen is a great essay. Copyright is a difficult thing, and I'm not an expert, but it pretty much boils down to this:

  • Everything is automatically copyrighted by the author
  • Copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author OR
  • The author can change their copyright status.

In this case, the link you added even has, at the bottom Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune. I suspect the author also has the copyright. (It gets funny when you do that stuff for your employeer).

Wikisource and wikimedia would be good locations for what you were talking about, if they too weren't copyrighted. Regrettably, I suspect they are, so we can't include them.

Feel free to send me any other questions....from here on out I'll probably reply on my talk page though (per the header), but you needed the welcome.  :)

Wikibofh 15:47, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Forensic

← See my talk page.

Thanks! I just wish this would "shot" me an e-mail as well.

--Cawas 14:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] See also links

"Why did you remove the See Also links just because they were already in the text?" A good question. I suppose that you mean a related topic, when you write about references. The Gmail article hasn't yet a references section. I think that the text should be so well ordered that the readers could get an idea of the related topics just by reading the introduction (One of the links that I removed was already in the introduction), table of contents or skimming through the article. Then the readers also have a chance to concentrate on the topics that they find interesting. I think that the only understandable reason for repeating the links in the see also section is emphasis. The editors want to show the most important topics. But the idea of the most important topics is subjective, so choosing them "correctly" is possible only in theory.

You could read the official guideline about the See also section. It doesn't take very strong stance on repeating links, but I think that it is still negative. "Mostly, topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article as free links." "See also --- references to related articles that have not been linked from free links in the text". There is some controversy about this, though. You can see it from this guide about lists. -Hapsiainen 21:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I can understand why you took it off. You are in fact thinking the same way I am, that there should be a place gathering related links all together. But to you, that's on introduction which should tell you about everything that the topic will talk about, and also give you all "important topic" links built-in.

Anyway I wasn't in fact thinking about References, although that's a better approach to the given idea than "See Also". My only problem is that I usually associate plain "reference" with "roots of this topic", rather than just "Related Information" or "Relevant Topics", which enclose more options.

The links in the text are always welcome, but some of them are only good if you read the text. At other hand, if you just try to see the text, you'll be able to see a lot of links. Some of them just make sense within the text, and some of them can make sense for the whole topic itself. Those are the ones I think should be grouped somewhere else. The itention there isn't to repeat or to emphasis them up. It's just a good way to organize information. It won't always be possible to gather all relevant links into the Introduction, as it might, sometimes, become too big.

Also it's not a section called "Most Important Topics", it is just about information that is related and may become handy, either because this isn't the topic you were looking for, for further reference, or who knows whatelse I'm missing

--Cawas 06:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Gmail

re:gmail Yes, I don't know of any better way short of using Google Groups to manage mailing lists. Hopefully they'll listen to the many requests for that functionality! Also an ajax-based Calender would be so useful. Then maybe we would have an easy way of organising a small group... Tzarius 01:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Orkut

Would you happen to have an Orkut account? I'm looking for someone to invite me :) --Vizcarra 18:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I do, but I don't use it anymore, for now. But if you still need the invite, let me know and I'll see what I can do. --Cawas 01:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please do. I would really appreciate it. --Vizcarra 18:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I've loved your archive organization! =)

But I still need to know your e-mail if you want me to send you an Orkut invitation. ;)

Actually, looks like orkut asks for First Name, Last Name and E-mail. I'm not sure.

Well, good luck, and cya around!

--Cawas 07:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Great, I sent you an gmail to gmail message. --Vizcarra 06:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, done.

But I believe, somehow, it looks like Orkut is not working through invitations now.

I've tried to use a feature inside there, the only place I had found before that I could put in an e-mail address and it looked like it was intended to work as invitation. But after setting it up with your e-mail, nothing happened. I believe it did not send you an invitation and I can't find where I could send an invitation inside Orkut. Maybe it just doesn't work like that anymore.

--Cawas 18:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, ok, I got your e-mail and you said it was fine. That's cool. =)

So that just tells me that Orkut still have an awfull interface. I'm happy I'm not "wasting my time" on it right now. I did like to get to know Orkut, but now I like even more that I'm away from it. :P

Good luck there!

--Cawas 02:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, everything worked out. Tnanks! --Vizcarra 02:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome. And now, very soon I may be able to use your idea on archiving to organize my wiki-pages. =)

Thanks for that!

--Cawas 02:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Filthy

Copied from talk page:
Thanks for fixing me on that. Are you sure you can't classify disambuiguation as stub? I mean, it still looks to me like it was a topic that need more information... Although you might be right about this specific page I've made, let me give you an hipotetical example that I can think of where a stub and disambiguation should be together:

--- The article is called "scrubs".

  • scrubs
  • scrubs

---

Let's suppose both links exist and works. Now, wouldn't this be a stub?

---

What about even another example? Let's say hypoteticaly it's filthy and that everybody knows that it has morethan 2 meanings. Then I want to add 2 meanings now, because I don't have the time to do the rest. I would call it a stub hoping somebody else would do the rest.

In the first example you gave (the scrubs one), it shouldn't be a stub. This is because there is no way that it could be expanded, unless someone else found another type of scrubs.
I'm not sure about the second example, but I asked on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation about it. Thelb4 21:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I see, that makes complete sense. Thanks for your input, and let's see how the new talk goes on. :) --Cawas 00:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ideas / Suggestions for Wikipedia

I still need to find the right place to post those, so I'll organize myself by adding them to here.

  • "Google Filter" on user's contrib, to be able to search better

Note: I really wanted to see google joinning forces with wikimedia, and vice-versa, in general (hoping). :P I know this is hard to happend due to the different nature of both, but it would be great! Yeah, google is not opensource, it's just freeware. But it uses the good power of marketing and spam to exist through money. And wikipedia is the most opensource as our language can be. But it depends on luck from donations to exist through money.

  • I've decided to move this to my main user page. But I'll leave this here as a link.

--Cawas 01:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Stub

You mentioned creating an article as a stub. Note that there is an active stub subculture on Wikipedia and that the usage of {{stub}} is deprecated in favor of using one or two (one usually) categorized stubs, a list of which is found at WP:WSS/ST. Courtland 04:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I won't have the time to read this now, so I hope you can help me on the article by classifing it better yourself! :) --Cawas 04:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] standards

Of course this is not directly related to me, but if I may ask, why not just using wikipedia's different language resources?

I mean, in your place I would add a link as de:user:Francis_Schonken instead of the one you're using (User_talk:Francis_Schonken/Dutch).

The main problem on doing that is the need to create a new user in the different language. I'm not even sure what's the best / proper way to do it, that's the main reason why I'm starting this conversation. :P

Thanks for your time.

--Cacumer 00:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your remark User talk:Francis Schonken#languages.
First, you seem to confuse Dutch (language) and German (language).
Second, though Dutch is my first language I don't visit Dutch wikipedia (i.e. nl:) nearly as often as English wikipedia, so the quickest way to reach me is English wikipedia.
Third, I don't want to bore English wikipedians with texts in Dutch, so I invite wikipedians that want to address me in Dutch, to use the "/Dutch" page.
And I don't get the gist of the problem you seem to experience with this. --Francis Schonken 09:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for not being too clear. And yes, I do and I did confuse those languages (and many others), a lot. (still so much to learn!). I'll be reading your links and try to prevent my confusion further on, so thanks for the insight! :P

I have the same problem, but to me it's Portuguese, from brazil. If anyone that knows wikipedia, but don't know english, ends up at my english user page in en.wikipedia I wonder what that person is going to do if he/she wants to talk to me in here. So I've put my contacts first and my other language page in pt.wikipedia, since wikipedia already is offered in other languages.

No, there's no problem having Portuguese on this talk page in English wikipedia, example: User talk:Miskin#Ρε συ, μιλάς ποδανά? - that's Greek, I don't understand it, and there's no "standard" in any sense that this should be avoided.
Also, there's no problem sending a wikipedian from one wikipedia user talk page to that of another wikimedia project, happens all the time, across languages. No need to try to live up to fictional "standards" that don't exist, just do what you think most practical (within technical possibilities). --Francis Schonken 18:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

If that person knows english enough to read anything I write in english, why bother telling them to go to the english wikipedia to talk to me in portuguese? Anyway, I can understand your point. I never verify my portuguese page, and if anyone sends me a "message" in there, I'll not be aware! I really miss a feature in wikipedia to send me an e-mail for messages that I receive in wikipedia... :(

I think, tho, that's rather a media wiki issue than something I should try to "fix" by myself through creating anything similar to cacumer/portugues. That's where I experience problems... I think your way to do it will work fine, but I think it's a bad standard. While I believe I'm using the good standard, it's faulty and not functional, hehe.

I still rather follow standards and make them work eventually. And, as I said at first, I'm not sure how's the best way to deal with this whole different languages issue either on english wikipedia or any other wikipedia's version. I'm just wondering about solutions here. I don't think there's any good solution yet.

--Cacumer 16:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I agree with most of your last answer.

But about the "there is no need to try to make a standard", maybe you have small idea on how important standardization (although I'm starting to think even wikipedia miss what it means to me) is. It is a way of organizing things. Sooner or later, wiki will need better standards to be able to grow up, and I'd love to see that happenning.

Anyway, that should be a whole other discussion, but I think that was, after all, this discussion. And I hope this is the end of it. :)

Thanks once more for all your attention.

--Cacumer 19:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, you misunderstood, I didn't say "there is no need to try to make a standard".
I contribute to making wikipedia standards fairly often, just still today, on how to use abbreviations in page titles on people, see: diff.
These are my user pages in other wikimedia projects where I ask people to post messages on my talk page of English wikipedia: Dutch Wikipedia; French Wikipedia; Meta; Wikisource; Commons; Wikiquote; English Wiktionary; Latin wiktionary
The "Dutch Wikipedia" user talk page is used nonetheless, but that is in periods: sometimes I work there a few weeks, I don't need to "warn" people they can use my user talk page then, it all comes naturally.
Another existing standard, is not to remove talk from someone else's user talk page. Well, you did that a few hours ago. I only wanted to make you feel at home, I didn't make a problem out of it, so why should you? You just did fine.
--Francis Schonken 20:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

All right! I could live with those ideas and standards. :)

I'm glad to realise I've misunderstood you.

I know about those existing standards, like that one to not remove (anything) from someone else's user talk page (or any other place). I would never do such a thing on purpose, I really dislike when people remove content instead of just organizing it.

So I haven't actually removed it. Instead, I've just linked it so it would be easier for at least one of us to talk, and hopefully still better for both of us than keep writing messages in each one's talk page. ;) Hopefully those little ideas we, wikipedians, have every day, will prove to be constant improvements of a "non standardized commonly standard" until media wiki can come with a better one.

And thanks for this talking! It sure enlighten me up.

(sometimes I think I say thanks too much... :P)

--Cacumer 06:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] refactoring

(continued from #standards)

The standard way wikipedians talk about such "organizing" of prior talk page content is calling it "refactoring". Be careful with it, even good-faith "refactoring" is not always appreciated by all wikipedians. --Francis Schonken 08:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess nobody like refactoring in a specific sense. But the one I've did, I only have done it because it was a topic that I've started and I didn't want to take your talk page space for it. But, if you want to, you're free to copy / remodel it. I wouldn't mind moving all conversation to your talk page.

I thought I have been carefull enough with you already, so I wonder why you said "be carefull". But I thank you, once again, for letting me know about this new name for an old concept. :)

You see... I would, if I were you, move this subject to your talk page. ;)

--Cacumer 11:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said, you've been careful enough with me, so don't worry.
The point I try to make is that (e.g. in wikipedia context) "standardisation" always has two sides: what one person would assess as a rational re-organisation, increasing standardisation, can always be seen by another one as an artificial model being imposed (etc.)
I'll give you two examples:
  1. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (years in titles)
  2. Wikipedia:Cite sources, "standardisation" of citation formats remains an endless recycling discussion up till now. I've no idea whether the latest move in the process - Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Citation Poll - will be able to finalise that discussion.
--Francis Schonken 11:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My point of view

Ok, I've looked at your examples... Now, I will just be pointing how I see it. I will not be saying it's the absolute true at all. It's rather just my point of view.

Right now I would say that all those attempts to standardize are basically a little nostalgia of expert wikipedians trying to get along with something that's just running in circles.

I've experienced similar ways of "round nostalgia" before, in several different situations, most notably as a programmer. I could see myself, weeks later, how I was just enjoying the new stuff, going round and round and doing a LOT, programmin A LOT to get at no different point. There was reason to go as far as I went, except I was kinda learning and finding it pretty cool and excitent.

To me, all those discusions in "wikipedia:" are the samething, in much bigger proportion.

What I mean is: there is no need for that. What is needed is building up tools to fill up holes. We have categories. We have templates. We have different languages. And we have few gaps between all of those. There is no need to try to say what's best or what isn't. There is no need to try to formalize everything. That's the beauty of wikipedia. It adjust itself to the needs of everyone who uses it.

Need a "standard"? Try to build a template, or fit in into a category, or both! You'll probably find out there is one already, so make it work better if you need to! If not, there you go, you don't have to have the trouble, thanks to wiki universe and its unique way to avoid ambiguous and duplicated data.

All those discusions seem so useless, they'll get nowhere. Instead of talking, do something for what you need and forget about it. The community will adjust by itself. Sometimes you will be doing more than the community wants, and it might get even "deleted" but that's rare and least. All other times, it will just adjust itself into wiki's way.

And that's all we need to do, just like you did already, Francis Schonken, in your talk page. I went in and I tried to understand why you did it, and now I think I've got it. Too bad I wasn't too clear, and quite confused and confusing on my question: it seemed like I was trying to adjust you into "my" idea of its standard. Luckly (or not) you knew better! :)

--Cacumer 01:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] hi

Hi. I found you in categories of users who can contribute in English and Portuguese. I myself am a native speaker of English, but I'm well on my way to learning Portuguese. Just check out my user page and talk page, and join in any of the discussions. To keep updated, you can even put a watch on my user page, which will automatically watch my talk page. :-) learnportuguese (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)