User talk:Grapeguy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Heron message

Hey, I just saw your quite newly registered, and nobodies said hello yet. So I thought I'd take the opportunity to welcome you here :) . Well insofar as I can welcome you, me not being a regular user around here really :D. But I do kind of know my way round, so if your in need of advice/help, feel free to drop me a line on my userpage (or perhaps better here, I log in more regularly to that account). Anyway I hope you enjoy doing some editing here and don't engage in trench warfare anytime soon :D (don't get yourself frustrated is what I'm trying to say). Regards Sean Heron (talk) 06:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

OH, PS, and remember to be bold!

[edit] Botteville message

Hello Mr. grapeguy. Welcome to Wikipedia. For a newb you already know a lot. It was weeks before I could reference a subsection with the #, and as far as leaving messages goes, I was getting messages to quit leaving messages on user pages for quite a long time. Then I would leave them on my own pages and months after people would say, "I finally read your message ...." In any case you seem to be doing everything just right. I would suggest though you put SOMETHING on your new user page, which (in case you might not have known) you can do by clicking the user page tab above and typing in. Don't forget to save.

Thank you for pointing out that things have been happening to my article in my absence. It isn't mine of course, it's Wikipedia's. I did that article in less of a state of experience. Experienced editors don't like inexperienced ones. I'm the exception. I wouldn't put those examples in there as links right in the article today. Experienced editors don't do that. The usual way is to create a footnote and put the link in a footnote, but not the way I did it, rather with a cite web. However in a sense that is irrelevant. Links are the most vulnerable part of an article. They die fast for a number of reasons, such as changing location, the author's inability to keep his site or his domain, or his just plain getting sick of looking at the same picture all the time, or discovery of Copyright problems with the picture or the text. Fixing links is an ongoing task at Wikipedia and it is the first thing I look at when I decide to edit an article. The more experienced editors are too lazy or too arrogant to do it; they just put a bunch of tags in and expect someone else to do it. In my view there are working editors and blood-sucking editors and I usually try to be a working editor. The Old Man and the Sea.

I only had recourse to external links because no pictures existed in commons. You can get to commons by clicking on its icon on Wikipedia fp. Then you search for your topic and the available pictures come up, but you need to search under different but related topics. It isn't a good idea today to download pictures that are not on commons. Commons used to plug flikr but they turned out to be offering mainly duds, pictures that really were copyrighted and had to be removed from Wikipedia.

I appreciate my article finding favor in your eyes. What I am saying in this long-winded way is a simple fix isn't really good enough. It needs an update. First, there are many more pics on commons than there were so each example now can probably be found on commons and built right into the article. Second, once anyone starts looking on commons, they are going to find other things and are going to want to do a little rewriting to bring in the nice pics. If no commons pics can be found then the Internet has to be searched for new and credible pics to include. Moreover, I never did finish the article: the old man and the sea syndrome. The longer you are on an article the more sharks you attract and they will NOT let you bring home the fish. I guess no one but you and me gives much of rat's tail about Cretan pottery or they would have destroyed the article by now. That's OK; that's the way I like it. Throw the bait so as to keep the predators off the nest.

So I do not know what really to say. I work by agenda unless there is an emergency, such as an article I worked on about to lose a status. They rank articles here. I am putting this article on my agenda right now but I do not know when it will be at the top. If you know something of Cretan pottery and can find out how to fix it go ahead.

If you really are a newb and not an experienced editor trying to wipe the slate clean, prepare yourself for the assault of the sharks. All I can say is try not to lose your temper and to realize that no article can be perfect. Don't respond like to like if you can help it. We are not all equal here. The rules apply to some but not to others. Just do the best you can. There are over 2 mil articles and such a mass media tool still seems to me to be worth learning some patience. Imagine you are in kindergarten and abuse by children of the teacher is allowed. I wouldn't trade my Wikipedia experience for anything. What a view of mankind you get! The poor struggling mud-crawler, able to see the light but not able to crawl vary far into it and constantly turning purple with frustration over it. Welcome once again, and non carborundum illegitimis.Dave (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with you about the utility of Wikipedia. It's like flipping a coin but then if heads are something and tails nothing you get heads at least half the time. I got warn you, Wikipedia ain't too friendly. The problem was inherent at the outset. Wales had a company he hired to do an encyclopedia but they didn't and couldn't - do it fast enough so he threw it open to the public. Naturally they didn't like that too well as they were getting paid to do the encyclopedia. They considered themselves "the experts" though on what basis they did that I do not know. If we could teach apes to read I wouldn't give them the "expert" stuff, as it was so inexpert. Their next move was to attack and drive off the public, which is, in a way, a form of sabotage. If Wales was not going to pay them to do it then by golly nobody was going to do it. They've been doing that ever since. They are the only ones I know skilled enough to totally vandalize an article and not leave a trace behind. Really experienced editor/ skilled vandal - same thing in many cases. They have the power and audacity to put bald-faced lies right into the article, prevent all efforts to take them out or flag them and insist YOU are the vandal for trying to do that, and make all that stick. Bah. They're all wet. Anyway as is usual the many people outnumber and eventually outweigh the few. I've seen improvement in articles that seemed hopeless. Eventually we attrit them down. As for your goals, you know, I had goals something like that. It was clear to me the encyclopedia could do far more than I could and faster so I threw in. Despite the running gun battles I am getting what I hoped to get and I hope you do also. The big advantage of this encyclopedia, which you must not neglect, is the links. Everything is interconnected. Let's say you read an intro to Crete. It should lead to a few dozen other articles, so by the time you are done it is not an intro but a whole book and more. Most books can't cover every Cretan site but Wikipedia can. It only remains to do it. Anyway I'm sorry about the article. My mind is set on something else right now. If I start in to fix an article I get drawn in deeper and deeper and next thing I know the other things I was working on get lost. It does take a long time to command Wikipedia labor. We do this for various reasons most of us not for money or glory so we work on what we feel like working on. Bonne chance. Pursue your educational goal and share it with us but don't get too upset if your stuff is mercilessly edited and often made worse. Sooner ot later it will get fixed. I got to go now. You can delete eveything on this page, no problem. The record of it stays forever but you may not want all the clutter on display. Some people keep pages and pages of it like notches on a big gun but I never saw any point in that. So after few weeks I will be deleting your messages. Good luck with it. Semper fi.Dave (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you guy. Eventually Crete will come to the top of my agenda again. If you are going to edit on Wikipedia you may find the help of great help. Most everything is in there, you just have to look for it. In keeping with the first advice (not mine) on this page, editors are not going to be especially eager to jump to your help, or "hold your hand", so to speak. You generally have to do it yourself. Hence the advice to be aggressive. Once you are you will find a good many editors eager to jump to your correction. Don't get discouraged (my advice on this page). Wikipedia can't happen unless we make it happen. You reasons seem perfectly sound but ideals must be implemented. I think that about exhausts our topics of conversation (unless something more comes up) so I am going to wipe my slate clean. Bonjour monsieur.Dave (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hyuk hyuk! I don't want to be unfriendly. You will get enough of that if you stick with it. If you got any light brief topics you want to discuss, or tips you would like, OK. I think Wikipedia offers a mentor. I shouldn't have got into this with you really except under the history of Wikipedia vendettas. It's more complicated than you think - there are many axes to be ground here, whether of advertising or partisan politics or just plain insanity, but that is what Wikipolice are for. I just try to write articles. Sincere good wishes. I do like a clean slate. It helps me think better.Dave (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)