I welcome review of my actions as an administrator. Please let me know if you have any concerns about anything I've done.
‘American Sniper’ thrills audiences — in Iraq
Outline of the September 11 attacks
Category:Candidates for speedy deletion
September 9, 2014 The Twenty-Eight Pages By Lawrence Wright
/info/en/?search=Special:WhatLinksHere/The_Zeitgeist_Movement
" Creamy snuff is a paste consisting of tobacco, clove oil, glycerin, spearmint, menthol, and camphor, and sold in a toothpaste tube. It is marketed mainly to women in India, and is known by the brand names IPCO (made by Asha Industries). According to the U.S NIH-sponsored Smokeless Tobacco Fact Sheet, it is marketed as a dentifrice."
We have
And naturally there's a category: Category:Criticism of individuals
Given the way Wikipedia works, it seems like there ought to be Criticism of my father. And why no Criticism of Adolf Hitler - or should it be Praise of Adolf Hitler? There are no articles in praise of individuals. Those with "praise of" in their titles are about works like The Praise of Folly. This is why: If someone wrote an article in praise of Mother Teresa, it would very quickly become one paragraph on "alleged charitable works" and four sections of criticism. But how about Praise of Voltaire? Or Praise of Galileo? Everyone loves Galileo. Someone start Praise of Galileo.
The page of my enemy has been deleted, and I am pleased.
A dictionary is about words. An encyclopedia is about things. There is some overlap, but in general an article in Wikipedia is about the thing, not the term for the thing. It's fine and informative to tell our readers about word origins and usage. And some articles are indeed about words, so there is no bright line. But in general, it's better to start an article with "A whale is..." rather than "Whale is a term for..." Then in a later paragraph, tell the reader about the etymology of whale. You don't even have to say term. You can write ''whale'' and get it in italics. Then the reader will know you're talking about the word and not the thing.
Related to this is "refers to", which sounds like a convict sidling around the yard, talking out of the corner of his mouth, watching out for the bulls. Or maybe that's just me. Compare:
Of course it could be worse. Predella could be the term that refers to the paintings.
"Welcome to Britain, a home fit for shysters". the Guardian. 2012-08-05. Retrieved 2012-08-05.
"The charter of Hamas - the Islamist party governing Gaza - asserts that the Freemasons are in league with the Jews and those unlikely bully boys - the Rotary Club - to undermine Palestine." [2]
I welcome review of my actions as an administrator. Please let me know if you have any concerns about anything I've done.
‘American Sniper’ thrills audiences — in Iraq
Outline of the September 11 attacks
Category:Candidates for speedy deletion
September 9, 2014 The Twenty-Eight Pages By Lawrence Wright
/info/en/?search=Special:WhatLinksHere/The_Zeitgeist_Movement
" Creamy snuff is a paste consisting of tobacco, clove oil, glycerin, spearmint, menthol, and camphor, and sold in a toothpaste tube. It is marketed mainly to women in India, and is known by the brand names IPCO (made by Asha Industries). According to the U.S NIH-sponsored Smokeless Tobacco Fact Sheet, it is marketed as a dentifrice."
We have
And naturally there's a category: Category:Criticism of individuals
Given the way Wikipedia works, it seems like there ought to be Criticism of my father. And why no Criticism of Adolf Hitler - or should it be Praise of Adolf Hitler? There are no articles in praise of individuals. Those with "praise of" in their titles are about works like The Praise of Folly. This is why: If someone wrote an article in praise of Mother Teresa, it would very quickly become one paragraph on "alleged charitable works" and four sections of criticism. But how about Praise of Voltaire? Or Praise of Galileo? Everyone loves Galileo. Someone start Praise of Galileo.
The page of my enemy has been deleted, and I am pleased.
A dictionary is about words. An encyclopedia is about things. There is some overlap, but in general an article in Wikipedia is about the thing, not the term for the thing. It's fine and informative to tell our readers about word origins and usage. And some articles are indeed about words, so there is no bright line. But in general, it's better to start an article with "A whale is..." rather than "Whale is a term for..." Then in a later paragraph, tell the reader about the etymology of whale. You don't even have to say term. You can write ''whale'' and get it in italics. Then the reader will know you're talking about the word and not the thing.
Related to this is "refers to", which sounds like a convict sidling around the yard, talking out of the corner of his mouth, watching out for the bulls. Or maybe that's just me. Compare:
Of course it could be worse. Predella could be the term that refers to the paintings.
"Welcome to Britain, a home fit for shysters". the Guardian. 2012-08-05. Retrieved 2012-08-05.
"The charter of Hamas - the Islamist party governing Gaza - asserts that the Freemasons are in league with the Jews and those unlikely bully boys - the Rotary Club - to undermine Palestine." [2]