User talk:Fabartus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 Gone!

The deletionists win and I'm voting with my feet.

re CSD criteria and non-policies on notification of interested parties

I've never had the time to fight their idiotic beliefs that less is more and better, save here and there, and I've two of my own to put through college. I see no reason to go on wasting time if some narrow interpretation of an unwise and misbegotten excuse for a guideline can be misconstrued to apply (and worse -- allow a speedy delete sans any notification of anything!!!) to a an article supporting dozens of others. My time is too valuable to go on throwing it away on such ill judged actions by the unwise few... and the hostile environment this creates is finally too much.

   I don't need the aggravations if this community can't be bothered to protect my time by at least requiring a tagging party to notify interested parties when they exercise their judgment. Seems only fair that actions to delete SHOULD AND OF A NECESSITY MUST COST THE APPLYING EDITOR AT LEAST SOME INCONVENIENCE AND PRECIOUS FREE TIME if they want to act in such a derogatory manner to the project's overall content! Never mind the disrespect any "judgment" that this should be deleted when exercised seems never to even pause a breath to consider the time it took others to put together. Instead the opposite attitude reigns—"Let's make it as easy as possible to cut material and damn the time of the many who struggled to put it together—their time is far less valuable than mine, after all. On this the communities continued behavior is pathetically and continually insensitive and childishly SELFISH! Granted it's convenient to those who most fervently believe that less is more. That doesn't make it either right or wise. FrankB 17:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

 

Contents

[edit] Fiction

I am also unhappy with treatment of fiction and notability. Alas, there is only so many things I can try to fix. My advice: never give up. Persistence usually wins. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Noble sentiments, but unrealistic I fear. This community is just not friendly to those of us who cannot devote huge blocks of time to it besides on a catch as catch can basis. Until it evolves to be more friendly to those of us with full and fulfilled lives outside wiki, until the kids in college who've insufficient experience to judge when a rule NEEDS be ignored... it will continue to be mired in mediocrity. The deletionists are in firm control, and I really see no reason to continue donating my precious time when I've two tyros of my own to put through college. At least when they go off and make rash decisions, I can have a discussion with them about their lack of perspective.
  • Be well... I've pretty much (at least for now) withdrawn my support for this community over 1632 Editorial Board. Fiction notability, and all that is a bit too much to bear on top of a thankless task from the gitgo. When the deletionists can't see an article supporting tens of other articles is both wise and beyond convenient, well... no reason to go on wasting time adding if some idiot can slap a speedy delete on it without considering how such impacts other pages.
  • The worst of it are these...
       A) such fools confuse action with progress.
       B) As always, they fail to consider that their taggings are hostile actions, and fly in the face of and spit upon the time spent by others adding not subtracting.

Best! // FrankB 16:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about creating a wikiproject - on or off wikipedia - to deal with that. Check the ideas discussed here. Maybe we can salvage something after all.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Re: Renamed during commons move?

Missing Pic?? Should do... regardless
Missing Pic?? Should do... regardless

Image:500px-Netherlands map large.png have never existed, soulds like you have linked directly to a 500px thumbnail version of Image:Netherlands map large.png wich is on Commons now. Since the file was moved to commons any "hotlink" to the 500px thumbnail version on en Wikipedia would no longer be valid, if you want the 500px version of the file from Commons the URL is now: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Netherlands_map_large.png/500px-Netherlands_map_large.png --Sherool (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Many thanks... not sure what the heck a hotlink is, or how this came about, but [[:Image:Netherlands map large.png|thumb|250px|Missing Pic??]] should do me fine. Much appreciated! It's great to know someone that knows the ins and outs of such mysteries when things get mysterious! Especially with as little time as I've had for the project lately! Have a great spring and summer! // FrankB 01:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IOOF

Thank you for the useful and helpful additions to IOOF, but you didn't proofread (copyedit?) your changes, and now some of the sentences don't make sense. Could you please review the page and make it say what you intended? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No, none of the mentioned reasons. When you review it, you'll see what I mean. Pdfpdf (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
e.g. ... and represents the name represents the chartered title of ... . Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yah, on it already... Mangled the opening sentence while focused on the text and cites below. My bad. //FrankB 23:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok--now proof read that-- better I think. Got dinner on a plate getting cold with wife's raised eyebrows (and temper!) to deal with... All yours now! // FrankB 00:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I've also discovered that wife & WP seem to be incompatible. C'est la vie. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh! Very nice!! It's a pleasure to see someone else make a serious contribution, let alone an improvement, to the page. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Geshuintite--yer welcome... Sorry about the oversight--whata we call that--a hanging chad from improper rephrasing? Simplify--honestly, a Brain Fart. Glad we caught that on a short time cycle. // FrankB 17:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trinadad

Google's search count estimates can be misleading. I usually look for the real end by editing the "start" field in the URL to see where I stop getting results. If you do that with "Trinadad", you wind up with http://www.google.com/search?q=Trinadad&hl=ja&lr=&safe=off&start=970&sa=N revealing that there are only 913 unique hits ... certainly not a frequent misspelling.Kww (talk) 02:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Frequent enough given that most of the one's I was looking at were business related... and it's certainly not counting dead tree use in ads and pamphlets and brochures.
  • The porn at the end of your 'tail check' is, of course, of negligible consequence... unless one is really hard up. Interesting technique though. (and I like Tail) Thanks // FrankB 03:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Using section heads as anchors

As an aside, even though I did take issue with you here, that was merely the jumping-off point for me to spot a couple of areas where we might be able to collaborate to solve our mutual problems. I'm glad it provided the impetus for me to check out some of what you've written.

I noticed in this edit that you added a comment to try to warn other editors from changing the section header that was being used as an anchor point within the page. I took the liberty of adding {{Anchor|Special characters}} immediately above that header. That way, even if the text gets changed, there will still be an anchor there for "#Special characters" to point to.

I share your frustration and disgust at the ease with which content gets deleted from this project. The way people go after deleting articles they don't approve of, you'd think that we were running out of electrons the way a printed encyclopedia might run out of paper! Bad articles get better over time, and articles on obscure topics hurt absolutely no one while helping a few. I suppose what it comes down to is that it is far easier to destroy than to create, far easier to efface than to polish. We might be up against human nature, which is hard to overcome, unfortunately. --SSBohio 05:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

In this edit I added some stub tags to the redirect article Edict of Worms. Hopefully that will attract some editors knowledgeable of the subject who can create and expand its content. --SSBohio 05:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

Thanks on the info for {{anchors}}... that will come in fairly handy for some things historical. Usually use {{redirectstohere }} but someone chided me a few months back for not just making a comment... can't win, I guess.
Also, T's on the stub tagging. I'd thought a few of those cats were stub categories, but more attention is good. I just stumbled into that need... and was several edits deep w/o ability to take that on, not in time nor with a good reference. Did find a web link that allowed me to keep a related edit straight, but one only has so much time. Amused on the del-noms, apparently the British are missing in RFD/TFD these days. Be well. // FrankB 15:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)