User talk:Smiloid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome, Smiloid!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun editing! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Stop unilaterally changing article names. You are causing chaos

Stop unilaterally moving pages. You are causing chaos to links and redirects. If you want to move a page, propose it at Wikipedia:Requested moves and let a vote take place. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 15:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Be bold, and go ahead and move the page if you are sure it needs to be moved. It isn't really necessary to request a move. Only request a move if you believe a move would be controversial. Otherwise, you place an unnecessary load on the community. Be sure to check for double-redirects though, and go clean up the mess yourself. Just a second opinion regarding the above harsh comment. In my opinion, nobody has the right to give orders like that, and it's on the very edge of what I consider civil behavior.

User:Pedant 22:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tarot

Hi there. I notice you contributed a bit to the tarot article. The article is being nominated for improvement here. Please vote if you wish to do so. :) Sam 22:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I added a "little" comment to the discussion in Talk:Tarot. -- Parsa 09:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Smiloid, I added dozens of inline templates (and one section template) to the Tarot article. Feel free to add more or alter the tone of the ones I added! Even if the article is only about Tarot divination, it still has many paragraphs that are uncited, reflect personal opinion, or appear to be original research. - Parsa 23:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert in Tarot. If templates are added to improve an article, removing them is borderline vandalism. Instead, the sources need to be found to remove the template tags. The problem is that the editors from occult backgrounds are largerly basing their knowledge on hearsay and non-academic sources. Even the Encyclopedia of Tarot is not a reliable source. There are academic works on Tarot origins, history and even use for occult purposes, but none of these editors seems to have seen the books. BTW, note that I changed the web links to more of an historical nature rather than the "how to interpret Tarot cards" types. - Parsa 22:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: Since your revert was itself reverted, I added some new tags: {{vc}} which gives the template: [this source's reliability may need verification]. Two of the authors of the single reference source have a PhD and a Masters, but that doesn't mean they are credible to write a book on card history. I seriously doubt if this book went through a university press, peer review, etc. - Parsa 23:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Yes, this is something that needed to be done. I've looked at the first two paragraphs and it does appear that improvements are being madeSmiloid 07:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

He he, actually I did the edit on the first two paragraphs. I bet some will absolutely hate it. However the article needs to be balanced, and it's far from it.
Another issue that I have found is that each and every Tarot card has a page, and they are even worse than the Tarot article. They are so clearly un-encyclopedic it's not funny. Check out the cards by going to this Template: Template:Major_Arcana. I added the tags on top and a note in each talk page. What a pain. I hope you can add your contributions. Worse than the above, some guy created templates for each suit and is listing every single tarot pip card. I think the articles and the categories should be recommended for deletion. How many academic sources can you find talking about one pip card? It will definitely all be occult nonsense.
Category:Suit_of_Wands
Category:Suit_of_Coins
Category:Suit_of_Swords
Category:Suit_of_Cups
Most have had no content but a copyrighted image in six months, which could qualify for speedy deletion.
- Parsa 09:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes! I too have noticed this. Wands should be Batons. I do think all this is unnecessary and perhaps it does warrant deletion. Can you imagine a single article for individual cards like "ace of hearts" in the playing card section? or a single page devoted to the pawn in the game of chess. Yes it is ridiculous!Wikipedia is not a dictionary or so they saySmiloid 08:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletions

You've nominated a few things for speedy deletion as blatant copyright violations, but didn't mention where the copyrighted material was copied from. Please include that information. Wodup 06:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The Minor Arcana article was one of those you tagged, but the article has been on Wikipedia for many years. It is possible that the source you found was actually a copy of the Wikipedia article. Unless you give the source, the article will not be deleted.-gadfium 08:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I probably did not do this correctly, but there are some copyrighted images which are falsely indentified as being PD in the States. Here's an example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pents13.jpg One can plainly see the the copyright notice "(c) 1971 US Games" on the lower right corner. Smiloid 22:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The uploader claims the image was first created in 1909. If this is true, then the claim of copyright on the image itself is probably void. I'll mark the image as needing investigation, and let someone more experienced at dealing with image copyrights deal with it.-gadfium 22:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I've added it to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 February 11/Images.-gadfium 22:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Divinatory"

Sorry. The word got picked up by firefox's spell checker, so i'd assumed it wasn't a real word. Guess i probably should have checked on google first before editing it out. --`/aksha 07:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tarot Major Arcana

Hi there,

Just wanted to give you the heads-up that I've taken off the noncompliant tags from the Major Arcana articles. I agree with the points you made about them needing improvement, but feel that template was a too extreme, and have changed it to a clean-up request. As the articles are so similar, I suggest we discuss how to proceed with improving these articles at Talk:Major Arcana. Hope to see you there!

Cheers --jwandersTalk 22:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I replied to that page saying I disagreed with the removal. Nothing has changed. The articles are still original research and un-encyclopedic. Parsa 20:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pronunciation of Jodorowsky

Hello! I noticed that someone changed the pronounciation of Alejandro Jodorowsky from Jodorowski to Hodorowski - can you give a reference to the original pronounciation? Thanks, SyP 09:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] New stub proposal {{tarot-stub}}

Having seen what you've started to do with the tarot card articles, I'd suggest that you go through the stub proposal procedure and get a proper stub tag sorted out. As is, including all of the Minor Arcana, this would give 56 articles that could be marked with that stub, close to the 60 that seems to be the general guidelines. I will, however, leave this up to you to handle this proposal if you want to do so, just thought that I'd suggest it. Cheers! Craw-daddy 18:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{Tarot-stub}}

Hi - I see you have recently created one or more new stub types. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types are proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it is otherwise correctly formatted, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any rationale for this stub type. And please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 02:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the template is worthwhile, and I made comments to that effect on WP:WSS/D. Of course it is good advice to try to assess consensus on any new major change. (see my comment on moving articles above) Don't feel like you have to ask permission for every change, just get a good sense of what the impact will be before you make a change and you should be all right. 'welcome to wikipedia', it's a pleasure to make your acquaintance. User:Pedant 22:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Troccas

Don't you want to translate the page from the german wikipedia? If you go over Wikipedia:Translations that would be great. (Micha L. Rieser) --62.202.30.86 20:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC) That's a great idea, Thanks. I've also started an article on Cego I'll take both articles to the Translations section Smiloid 04:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tarot Trivia Deletion

Thanks for saving me the effort of deleting it. Although I don't often get a chance to be bold, so I shall have to go and be bold elsewhere now... sigh. Cheers! Gillyweed 22:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Troggu

f.y.i. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troggu --62.202.30.86 22:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Danke Smiloid 19:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism

I used to be an atheist, but I gave it up. No holidays. :( Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC) LOLSmiloid (talk) 05:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Copyright

Why have you replaced all the non copyrighted tarot card images with copyrighted ones and then tried to get the images deleted as copyright violations? Morgan Leigh | Talk 07:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

At the time I proposed deletion which was quite a while back, I was not as informed as to their copyright status. That particular issue has been settled. I am confident that these newer Rider Waite Major Arcana images are in public domain. The images that were formerly used to illustrate the Rider Waite Major Arcana are b&w images colorized by Wikipedia users. I thought it would be better to illustrate the articles with more authentic images than ones entirely created by Wikipedia editors.Smiloid (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up for me. I have been away and was catching up on what has happened in the articles I watch and wasn't able to quite trace the trail of this to find out what happened in the end. Morgan Leigh | Talk 23:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Fuzzypeg deserves some credit for resolving this copyright quagmire. He uploaded some new Rider Waite images here which are both authentic and public domainSmiloid (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)