This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Cleaned April 9, 2005. To add comments click on the + in the tab at the top of this page.
Deleting is not the most appropiate solution to the problem. Protecting the article, blocking the offending users and continued editing efforts are better solutions. Joelito 23:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand your reference to WP:SCH in your Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carroll High School (Fort Wayne, Indiana) vote. This isn't about noteworthiness of a school, it's about clearing out an edit history that exposes the WP Foundation to possible legal action in hopes a valid article can be written. The article doesn;t qualify as a speedy delete since too many editors contributed to it. - Davodd 00:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I noticed you put a Good Article nomination thing on the Dallas, Texas talk page. I went to the good article thing and a quick search of dallas returned no results.. not sure if there's actually a candidacy process or what.. or if you promoted it. If you promoted it, why not promote it for Featured Article status? The article is better than most major city articles and far better than many current Featured articles.. drumguy8800 - speak? 01:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see you no longer have the time to contribute to WP:USR. It was a pleasure to collaborate with you. Best of luck. - Jay Carriker 07:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
User:Jonathan David Makepeace has given a "fail" to your nomination of Monarchy in Canada as a good article - originally removing the tag without explanation. I think his logic of "the page history shows constant editing and back and forth between opposing points of view, an obvious fail" is a little suspect to me, especially as the criteria for good articles makes no mention of such limitations, and I know the person is an avowed anti-monarchist (his webpage is Res Publica: International Anti-Monarchy Web Directory). However, as I've edited the article heavily, I feel my position on the subject might be a little compromised. You may want to comment on this yourself. -- gbambino 22:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Why do you keep including information about the KITCO lawsuit. It was never a huge event in station history and in my mind, as a long time former employee I don't think it belongs in a factual history of the place.
Just a second here. Why have you made this into two separate articles? There was no discussion, and I can't see any good reason for it. Now that new article is being considered for transwikiing. I think this move needs to be undone. Instead of an article, we now have a list with no context and a stub that will probably never be significantly expanded.
I've just checked the edit history, and it appears that it is you who have nominated the new page for transwikiing. Why? There's been no discussion, and the last time we discussed this the vote was not to do so. Exploding Boy 06:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not:
1. Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. An article should usually begin with a good definition; if you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers.
2. Lists of such definitions. There are, however, disambiguation pages consisting of pointers to other pages; these are used to clarify differing meanings of a word. Wikipedia also includes glossary pages for various specialized fields.
3. A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., should be used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used in order to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate.
For a wiki that is a dictionary, visit our sister project Wiktionary.
Hey, thanks for the invite. Yeah, I'm definitely interested, though I don't know how much time I'll have to contribute, but I'd be more than happy to give what I can here and there. - Smahoney 02:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
You voted for Caribbean Sea, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured- standard article. - Scottwiki 03:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
You are disputing the section of the article that categorizes NAMBLA. You are not disputed the factual content of the whole article. The appropriate tag in this case is the one that disputes the categorization section only unless you see other facts you wish to dispute in the rest of the article. Correcting your misplaced tag is not vandalism. If anything, it was a correction of your inadvertant vandalism. Corax 20:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Continually reverting misplaced dispute tags is not in violation of 3RR, just as reverting vandalism repeatedly is not in violation of 3RR. Anyhow, this attempt to game the system illustrates that you are unable to rely on sound argument to get your point across. Good luck on using Wikipedia to make your political statements. Corax 16:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Good idea! Thanks for the new page! -- CTSWyneken 20:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
— Bkell 20:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
— Bkell 20:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
— Bkell 20:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
— Bkell 20:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
— Bkell 20:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
— Bkell 20:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
— Bkell 20:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
— Bkell 20:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
— Bkell 20:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
— Bkell 20:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
— Bkell 20:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Cleaned April 9, 2005. To add comments click on the + in the tab at the top of this page.
Deleting is not the most appropiate solution to the problem. Protecting the article, blocking the offending users and continued editing efforts are better solutions. Joelito 23:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand your reference to WP:SCH in your Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carroll High School (Fort Wayne, Indiana) vote. This isn't about noteworthiness of a school, it's about clearing out an edit history that exposes the WP Foundation to possible legal action in hopes a valid article can be written. The article doesn;t qualify as a speedy delete since too many editors contributed to it. - Davodd 00:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I noticed you put a Good Article nomination thing on the Dallas, Texas talk page. I went to the good article thing and a quick search of dallas returned no results.. not sure if there's actually a candidacy process or what.. or if you promoted it. If you promoted it, why not promote it for Featured Article status? The article is better than most major city articles and far better than many current Featured articles.. drumguy8800 - speak? 01:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see you no longer have the time to contribute to WP:USR. It was a pleasure to collaborate with you. Best of luck. - Jay Carriker 07:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
User:Jonathan David Makepeace has given a "fail" to your nomination of Monarchy in Canada as a good article - originally removing the tag without explanation. I think his logic of "the page history shows constant editing and back and forth between opposing points of view, an obvious fail" is a little suspect to me, especially as the criteria for good articles makes no mention of such limitations, and I know the person is an avowed anti-monarchist (his webpage is Res Publica: International Anti-Monarchy Web Directory). However, as I've edited the article heavily, I feel my position on the subject might be a little compromised. You may want to comment on this yourself. -- gbambino 22:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Why do you keep including information about the KITCO lawsuit. It was never a huge event in station history and in my mind, as a long time former employee I don't think it belongs in a factual history of the place.
Just a second here. Why have you made this into two separate articles? There was no discussion, and I can't see any good reason for it. Now that new article is being considered for transwikiing. I think this move needs to be undone. Instead of an article, we now have a list with no context and a stub that will probably never be significantly expanded.
I've just checked the edit history, and it appears that it is you who have nominated the new page for transwikiing. Why? There's been no discussion, and the last time we discussed this the vote was not to do so. Exploding Boy 06:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not:
1. Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. An article should usually begin with a good definition; if you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers.
2. Lists of such definitions. There are, however, disambiguation pages consisting of pointers to other pages; these are used to clarify differing meanings of a word. Wikipedia also includes glossary pages for various specialized fields.
3. A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., should be used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used in order to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate.
For a wiki that is a dictionary, visit our sister project Wiktionary.
Hey, thanks for the invite. Yeah, I'm definitely interested, though I don't know how much time I'll have to contribute, but I'd be more than happy to give what I can here and there. - Smahoney 02:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
You voted for Caribbean Sea, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured- standard article. - Scottwiki 03:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
You are disputing the section of the article that categorizes NAMBLA. You are not disputed the factual content of the whole article. The appropriate tag in this case is the one that disputes the categorization section only unless you see other facts you wish to dispute in the rest of the article. Correcting your misplaced tag is not vandalism. If anything, it was a correction of your inadvertant vandalism. Corax 20:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Continually reverting misplaced dispute tags is not in violation of 3RR, just as reverting vandalism repeatedly is not in violation of 3RR. Anyhow, this attempt to game the system illustrates that you are unable to rely on sound argument to get your point across. Good luck on using Wikipedia to make your political statements. Corax 16:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Good idea! Thanks for the new page! -- CTSWyneken 20:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
— Bkell 20:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
— Bkell 20:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
— Bkell 20:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
— Bkell 20:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
— Bkell 20:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
— Bkell 20:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
— Bkell 20:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
— Bkell 20:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
— Bkell 20:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
— Bkell 20:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
— Bkell 20:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)