User talk:Yannismarou: Difference between revisions
→Re: Tutorial: new section |
Bigdaddy1204 (talk | contribs) Hello Yannismarou! |
||
| Line 205: | Line 205: | ||
Sorry about that; the advice got moved to a subpage of [[WP:MILESSAY]], but we didn't check for backlinks. ;-) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] 18:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC) |
Sorry about that; the advice got moved to a subpage of [[WP:MILESSAY]], but we didn't check for backlinks. ;-) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] 18:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
==Hello, Yannismarou!== |
|||
I have given some support to your cause at the talk page for Manuel I Komnenos. I think it is completely wrong for Adam and str1977 to act in such a way, and I have said so. Know that I respect your contributions far more than theirs. Best wishes, [[User:Bigdaddy1204|Bigdaddy1204]] ([[User talk:Bigdaddy1204|talk]]) 19:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 19:06, 17 February 2008
——————————————— MY TALK PAGE ———————————————
| Userpage | Talk | Contributions | About me/Userboxes | Sandbox | Thoughts about Wikipedia | Ten tips to make an article FA |
 |
Hi, and welcome to my talk page! Please remember to:
If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia or frequently asked questions. If you need editing help, head here. |
|
1: January 2006 – August 2006 |
Your comments about the Linda Kasabian article
thank you for your comments. Question: let's assume all your comments are addressed and the article is edited to better fit wikipedia standards. Who makes the determination and HOW do the tags at the top of the article get removed? (the ones claiming the article lacks in-text citations and that the tone needs improvement). Who makes those go away? Unscathed310 (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Unscathed310
12 Olympians
You should know that Hades is part of the 12 and not Demeter. She is a lesser god and not an Olympian. Read your Mythology book, is it so hard to do that?
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)
The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you do a favor?
The Signpost is going to be running a Tutorial series. One of the topics is going to about making an article featured. After reading your 10 steps to a Featured Article, I believe you would be a good person for this job. Do you think you can do it? The Placebo Effect (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- THanks, I'll add your name to the list. The Placebo Effect (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- The date of your article has been delayed and moved to February 26. This is to allow two other articles to go before your that form a logical chain (Creating an article, citing an article). Just keeping you up to date and imforming you of things that might change your article/influence how you write it. The Placebo Effect (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR
| Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
|---|
|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. |
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "S"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "T"s through "Z"s (and beyond, apparently)! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 20:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
FYROM and other so-called acronyms
Well you cite no references, no sources, nothing and you still use FYROM, f.YROM and similar. Regarding the White Tower on the bank note, it is also not verified. Is it a problem to cite sources? If you do not have any sources, abusing the number of your fellows to block my edits is counter productive...
--Kirev (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
3RR accusations
You have accused another user of breaking WP:3RR. I kindly invite you to read the rules, as the user you warned isn't even close to violating the rules. WP:3RR prohibits making the same change four times in 24 hours. Kirev has edited completely different topics at the page and only removed your claim once, the warning is thus void. Cheers JdeJ (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Question about a peer review
Hi, I recently submitted Charles Faulkner for peer review. I can't find it anywhere... not even in the archives. Do you know where it went? I was using it as a guideline improving the biography. Help is appreciated. Brinabina (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Informing past contributors of new TFD for Template:Maintained
As you were a contributor in the last TFD, I am letting you know that {{Maintained}} is again up for deletion. Please review the current version of the template and discuss it at the TFD. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-30 17:48Z
Speedy deletion of Template:Elections in Greece
A tag has been placed on Template:Elections in Greece requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.
Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)
The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:HOGOpenTasks/Discussion
A tag has been placed on Template:HOGOpenTasks/Discussion requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.
Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:HOGOpenTasks/Expansion
A tag has been placed on Template:HOGOpenTasks/Expansion requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.
Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:HOGOpenTasks/Missing
A tag has been placed on Template:HOGOpenTasks/Missing requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.
Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:HOGOpenTasks/Recentlyupdated
A tag has been placed on Template:HOGOpenTasks/Recentlyupdated requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.
Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:HOGOpenTasks/Top
A tag has been placed on Template:HOGOpenTasks/Top requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.
Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Second Punic War
Hi Yannismarou
I'm working on the Second Punic War. I have been struggling with this mass of 14 years of war and many campaigns until I found a new structure to it dividing the whole affair into 3 stages in 3 different regions. I know no other author but me doing so, making it original, I hope not OR. For this reason I ask you take a look and state your opinion. Thanks Wandalstouring (talk) 12:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Military history coordinator selection
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Woody (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:Greek electoral laws
A tag has been placed on Template:Greek electoral laws requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Second Punic War
I'm still writing the article but I wasn't sure how long it would take and what pauses I would make, so there is no under construction template. The whole section about what lead to this war has to written. I wasn't sure where to discuss briefly the primary sources about the conflict the lead or the end are two possible choices. As you can see there are some notes of dates and battles that not yet have been integrated into the article. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- What I wanted to know was whether you think the division into stages and regions a good idea. It seems to me the only way to reasonably present the whole complicated affair. So far the first section about the war in the western Mediterranean is quite finished, but that's only 10% of the whole. I think it will take me still half a year until the article is completely finished since it involves lots of work and I have to reread some books. Wandalstouring (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm cutting the prose as short as possible otherwise it will be unreadable. This morning I summarized the Fabian strategy(I know, still needing cites) to include briefly all major points since it is more complex than usually presented. The overall length could be seen as a trouble, but this war lasted longer than both world wars together, involved powers from three continents and has almost as many battles in the list of most costly engagements as the Napoleonic Wars. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost suggestions
... who review the articles at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates for accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style ...
- ... who review articles at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates for prose quality, accuracy, neutrality, completeness, stability and style ...
... A small bronze star () on the top right corner of an article's page indicates that the article is featured.
- Not really, anyone could stick that star on an article. Being listed at WP:FA by Raul or his delegates is what indicates an article is featured.
... At present, there are 1,895 featured articles,
- As of February 15, there are ...
... closing of your nomination by the FA Director.
- ... closing of your nomination by the FA Director or his delegates.
... Assertions and assessments should be definitely cited.
- And direct quotes and hard data.
... Concerning citations, try to adopt a consistent and cohesive style of citing
- Not "try"; it's a requirement (2c).
... The whole article must not be too lengthy.
... Find or create pictures and maps with OK copyright status.
- Link to the appropriate pages.
... Submit for more than one peer review.
- This might be where you can point out that a GA does not an FA make, and appearing at FAC the moment some GA reviwer passed your article rarely bodes well.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi
Can a cool admin help a guy out? I want to add one sentence to the world of Wikipedia. But I can't. The sentence is factual, provable, reliable (I chose the New York Times version.)
Circumcision may decrease a man's risk of getting HIV but it may also INCREASE a man's risk of getting herpes and chlamydia. (and some doctors even say other STD's too but I won't get into that and I wouldn't put caps on INCREASE.)
The article on circumcision mentions the term HIV probably 100 times (I'm not joking) and mentions "herpes" or "chlamydia" not Once. Click on the article. You tell me if it's an article on the procedure or a pro-circumcision propaganda pamphlet.
Can a cool admin stop two guys named Avraham and Jakew (the site's dictators) from deleting my one sentence I want to add? Or possibly get new Admins to take over this article, which has fallen way below Wikipedia standards.
here's the New York Times piece... http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C07E4D91F3AF931A35757C0A961958260&fta=y
I used to love Wikipedia until I went to add a sentence, you know? Well, thanks. 70.114.38.167 (talk) 07:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: Tutorial
Sorry about that; the advice got moved to a subpage of WP:MILESSAY, but we didn't check for backlinks. ;-) Kirill 18:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Yannismarou!
I have given some support to your cause at the talk page for Manuel I Komnenos. I think it is completely wrong for Adam and str1977 to act in such a way, and I have said so. Know that I respect your contributions far more than theirs. Best wishes, Bigdaddy1204 (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)