If User:Newbyguesses left a message on a talkpage then User:Newbyguesses will be monitoring that talkpage for replies
or, leave a message here, if you wish –
If a message is left on this talkpage then User:Newbyguesses will usually reply on this talkpage, below
or the article/talk/page or to sender's talkpage, whichever
When this talkpage gets too long, sections will be archived, appropriately, by — User: Newbyguesses
Hello Newbyguesses! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —EncMstr 04:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optimism should have a separate page that focuses on the philosophical idea of optimism and distinguishes the philosophical view from "positive thinking" and other everyday uses of the word.
Philosophy of social science, has some okay points but requires elaboration on Wittgenstein and Winch, perhaps other linguistic critiques, whether logical positivist or postmodernist.
Exchange value needs to be redone, it shouldn't be under 'Marxist theory'- although it's an important component of Marxist theory it's also vital for all economics. That said the article's weight on Marx is also absurd.
Socratic dialogues could do with some tidying and clarification. See the talk page for one suggested change.
Problem of universals: The introductory definition is (perhaps) fixed. But, the article is poor. Check out the German version.
Teleology: the article is shallow and inconsistent.
Existentialism: the quality of this article varies wildly and is in desperate need of expert attention.
Analytic philosophy This is a very major topic, but still has several sections which are stubs, and several topics which are not covered.
Lifeworld A philosophical concept that seems to have fallen exclusively into the hands of the sociologists. Could use some attention; it's a major and complex issue in phenomenology.
Perception Needs the attention of philosophically minded Wikipedians. This is only the start of an overhaul of perception and related articles.
If I can't find a current article on Education in Queensland, I may start such an article. I suspect that there is a fair amount of information contained in Education in australia that applies. Nonetheless I think an article could be in order. I might add more to this discussion later - I have to head home now. --Martian.knight 05:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ratings
The Campbell Newman article is not rated for importance in the BRISBANE category, but it is in the Australia category ;) To add a Brisbane importance rating, use brisbane-importance=mid to the Wikiproject Australia banner. In this case, I added one, as an example. G1ggy!Review me! 04:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good work with the ratings btw! That "unknown/unknown" list across the country is shrinking rightly - I've been on the case for Victoria, Tasmania and WA/Perth. Orderinchaos 03:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, great work there! I was surprised to see the backlog drop by 200. Congrats :D G1ggy!Review me! 04:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tnx, the ones left unassessed are cz of merges, not sure what to do there. Also, we dropped Brisbane Water, (its in NSW), but gained Brisbane Water (utility). I am replying to thread here, (keep it all in one place), do you have this talkpage on your watchlist? May I call you G-one, or how to pronounce your handle? Back to my watchlist, cheers! — Newbyguesses 04:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't watch other talkpages generally. I usually ask that I get replies on mine. You can call me whatever you like, Giggy is the most common. G1ggy!Review me! 23:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff79
Nice to make your acquaintance mate. Yeah, I usually try to put an edit summary, but sometimes I'm just slack. I'll try and do better.--Jeff79 02:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your latest updates to Broncos-2007 are good, and with edit-summaries! When you see my latest edit there, it was to correct the link, (maybe it was a joke - the link went to an old John Wayne film, The Cowboys). Anyway, a piped link like this — [[North Queensland Cowboys|the Cowboys]] would have worked too, but didn't look right to me. My web-connection is on a go-slow this weekend, so, guess I am too — Newbyguesses 13:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adoption
Glad to oblige. I have two adoptees, but though they keep me busy enough they haven't been asking many editing-related questions so far (strange as that seems). So I'd be happy to help you out when I can. You can add {{Adoptee|Superm401}} to your userpage if you'd like. Superm401 - Talk 07:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Infoboxes
Hey, I'm sorry about the delay. I fixed the image in the The Gap State High School infobox; it needed a full image link ([[Image:Tgshs logo.gif]]). I think that was the only remaining problem. The template is at Template:Infobox Aust school so you can see how it works if you'd like. As for categories, I'm no expert. But I wouldn't have both subcategory and main category. So I took Category:Schools in Australia out, because Category:High schools in Australia is a subcategory of that; again, this may not be the preferred style. I don't think it matters how many there are otherwise. Category organization is nice, but I wouldn't worry about it.
I see what you mean about the forest (nice way of putting it). :) Generally, it's best to link things that "should" have articles. I unlinked State Secondary High School and just linked High School because I'm not sure the whole term will ever get an article. Dates should be linked (see Wikipedia:Dates#Dates_containing_a_month_and_a_day), because it allows the date reformatter to kick in. I'm not sure what you mean about suburbs. It's probably best to put the actual town, and explain in the article that it's near a particular city (i.e. Brisbane here). The Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#External_links manual of style seems to indicate the link format currently used is correct. You can change the font by modifying your user styles. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_CSS for help.
There's nothing wrong with sandboxes, and it is a good place to test HTML and templates. The formatting syntax does take getting used to, especially if you know no HTML. However, there are plenty of people to help with that (including me :) ) so don't worry.
The default user preferences are sane, but there are things worth changing. For instance, you may want to customize your signature like me (I use [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] - [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] with "Raw signatures" enabled). Also, you can customize your watchlist or search (However, Wikipedia's onsite search is pretty bad. I recommend just including " site:wikipedia.org" in a google search; no quotes) preferences. You can email me if you'd like, but anything that doesn't need to be private is better off on the site. Superm401 - Talk 20:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, {{WPSchools}} (or a related template) should be added to the top of all the talk pages of school articles; however, too many of these templates does get really annoying. Superm401 - Talk 20:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use image
Your fair use rationale is excellent. Logos are generally a safe bet, so you don't always have to go into such depth. Also, don't use the logo tag twice in one image description. If you enter it manually, don't select it from the dropdown as well.
Keep me posted. I'll be glad to help with whatever comes up.Superm401 - Talk 01:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts on your todo
Below is a stream of consciousness response to your todo list.
I don't like archiving so much; I prefer to link to old versions using the built-in history mechanism. See my talk page for examples. This, however, is an unpopular position, and I do archive other pages. You shouldn't need to worry about the signing bot, because that already runs on the entire Wikipedia. I use popups, and do find it valuable; practice makes perfect, but tell me if you have questions.
As far as efficiency, try to avoid making repeated small edits (like noticing several mistakes in a row). Use preview to avoid this (I know I should practice what I preach more. :) ).
Don't worry about diskspace (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not paper), and rarely worry about bandwidth (though donations help).
I do have some interesting scripts at User:Superm401/monobook.js (you could copy some to User:Newbyguesses/monobook.js). I recommend checking out Wikipedia:User scripts. Keep in mind running too many scripts does slow your browsing down somewhat (I probably have too many). Also, it is a slight bandwidth burden (but I told you not to worry!).
Finally, I will try to look over your edits occasionally, especially when you're least expecting it! ;)
Is a sandbox also a page in userspace, and a subpage? If one wanted to dummy up a new article, how to ensure it stays out-of-sight of the public? And if one dummied up a "template" (for new article-stubs) for some reason where would that go? Probably, there are such templates available, tho and not-deprecated, I think I saw such sometime.Newbyguesses - Talk 14:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Popups
Hi, I am starting to use Popups, its scary, but that auto-save is a bottler. Dont understand what it means to "edit a prior version"? What if a "test-editor" has done three sneaky ones (see my edits on Greatest Hits). Can you catch them? What does it mean "all intermediates will be lost"? Am I right, WP-Undo works "in article space", but Popups gets its info from somewhere else? What happens when you "edit a previous version"? Is that a way to cut and paste around things when good work was interspersed with nonsense edits? (btw) I prefer to use the word 'vandalism' only to refer to the aggregate effect of damage (temporary) to WP - to me, each individual edit which I revert is (rv-v an unhelpful edit) , or (rv-v nonsense) or such – it matters to me to use and mean words, that's what interests me, so I put the little flower on the User:page with its unspoken message (just like I see others do), being as true as one can to WP:AGF. Wonder how long this idealism can last? ...
Regarding the word vandalism and WP:AGF, if you keep editing you'll come to distinguish between tests and vandalism. But in the mean time, feel free to avoid the v-word.
Why do you find popups scary? Of course, you don't have to enable it if you don't want to. What do you mean "Auto-save is a bottler". I don't know what autosave you're referring to (don't think Wikipedia has one) and I guess bottler is Australian slang (that I don't understand).
Um, -- Popups has a feature which automatically presses the save tab, and then says at the top, please wait for next page to load - that's a real handy feature, yes.
Australian slang dictionary for the novice and expert alike. ... Bottler :, something excellent. Bottling : his blood's worth:, he's an excellent, ...
http//www.australianexplorer.com/slang/phrases.htm –Newbyguesses 02:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I temporarily forgot about that. You're right; popups (and other parts of Wikipedia) uses autosave in several places. Superm401 - Talk 03:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there are multiple bad edits in a row (including the most recent edit), you have to revert to the last good revision before them. One way to do that is click on that revision (in the history), click "edit this page", then save (with an edit summary saying you're reverting). Alternatively, you can mouse over the revision, wait for popups to activate, mouse over the article title, and click "revert" in the menu. See Wikipedia:Revert for more information.
You are correct that undo is a distinct concept. The clever thing about undo is that it eliminates a bad edit without disrupting later good edits; this is not always possible. When undo doesn't work, and there's a good edit after unreverted bad ones, you have to manually fix the page.
The automatic reverts done by popups (e.g. the kind I talked about before) are implemented by accessing the source of the revision you want to revert to, then saving it. Administrators (like me ;) ) have access to a special kind of revert called rollback. If the current version of a page is bad, and I click rollback, it reverts to the last revision before the editor that saved the current page. Usually, there is only one bad revision, but sometimes there are several in a row (like with Greatest hits).
Editing an old version shows you the source code of that version. For one thing, you can then copy good info from that version into the current page. But if you just click save, the current version of the page will be replaced with that old version. Thus, revisions in between that old version and the current version are erased (well, they're still in history but not reflected in the displayed page).
P.S. Please try to create seperate talk page sections for separate topics. It's easier to keep organized that way. Superm401 - Talk 01:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Citations
I don't understand what you mean about citations. Don't worry about being slow. I don't know about half the time, but nobody spends all their time writing. Definitely don't get despondent. Wikipedia does have a bit of a learning curve. It's easy at first when you're only doing minor things, but to get more involved takes work. Keep at it, and I think you'll find it rewarding. Superm401 - Talk 01:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects and navigation
A redirect is a way of making one page direct the reader automatically to the other. For example John smith redirects to John Smith (note the caps). It is created with the text:
#REDIRECT [[Page to redirect to]]
A double redirect is simply a redirect to a redirect. When you move a page, that creates a redirect from the old name to the new one. English Wiktionary is at http://en.wiktionary.org . You can create a link to a wiktionary page. To link to the dog definition, write [[wiktionary:dog|dog definition]]. Links to other wikis are displayed in a special color, but without the arrow that indicates external links. As for your browser, I recommend using browser tabs to keep multiple related pages open in a single window; this drastically increases productivity (among other things it prevents some back-and-forth). I use Firefox and also find mouse gestures helpful. Also, don't (or try not to :) ) make the mistake of keeping all your tabs in a single window. This defeats the logical grouping. Superm401 - Talk 01:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Swarming
How does deletion go
If you would care to take a look at my contribution on this talkpage? I am unsure what action I would take. (How does deletion process go?) ... Also, I should on the article page date-fix the neutrality tag, (Y/how?) — Newbyguesses 02:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like the article could be rewritten in a NPOV way, but it's currently quite biased. So it's really your call whether to nominate it for deletion. See Wikipedia:Deletion process for information about the process. ...
You can add a date to the POV notice by writing {{POV}}. See Template:POV#Usage
04:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou, User:Superm401, two articles were prodded, here -
That article has been prodded. I sent notification to I believe, the original author. Some edits done a while ago, (must have been over-tired) started out to improve the sub-standard writing, but at some stage veered over to a mild, I hope, violation of WP:POINT. Soon as I realized my error, I reverted, commented on Talkpage, then logged off and went to bed with no supper. Blots (minor) on my copy-book, which I gotta explain if under questioning.Newbyguesses 13:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is required. I am aware of the issue of canvassing. (when does it apply, who makes such an accusation?)
The posting of messages on a talkpage, so as to solicit a reply, and then a discussion joined in by others and amplified - (especially when say inflammatory wording is used) - could be considered as canvassing? Or else it is actually a genuine attempt at consensus building? What if some of the participants are merely the dreaded sock puppets? Looking more into WP, there are pages that blur the difference between talkpage, and policypage, and noticeboard etc - for instance Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia sections in articles. Recent straw polls etc (actually not the straw polls, particularly) may show instances of posters seeking to elicit supporters, or disparage opponents (in such a way as to isolate their position). The consensus reached to date on this page seems robust, so the system works, (here) I think. Even the page Talk:Global warming, which displays considerable contentiousness, not to mention acrimony, appears to date to exhibit robust consensus as to what is in the article. So, the system works, here. If you see where I am going here: possible issues canvassing/consensus-building and talkpage/voting or polls on policy, would you have any comments from an experienced admin's (your's that is :) point of view on these issues? (Incidentally, both Global Warming and it's talkpage, where I commented once, take four minutes to load to my screen. I spent forty-six minutes, back and forth, recently, only to discover that the change I was considering was ruled out by a comment in the code above the first line of the article-text. I cant get to the bottom of this article as I said I would, so I will tend to avoid any articles with images, and look for topics that can't grow too long.) Still looking into browser tabs - with IE6 dont think I can run it? – Newbyguesses - Talk 07:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing essentially means asking many editors (via their talk page) to vote for/on your position; it is considered disreputable and your "opponent" in a debate may accuse you of it (accurately or not).
Thanks, I see ...
Here is another article which has been "prodded". A transwiki process (10 June) moved Hypercritical point to Wiktionary:Transwiki:Hypercritical point. Content of article in full: "A hypercritical point is a point in the domain of a function at which the second derivative of the function is either zero or undefined." How many of these stubs are being deleted by these methods? Presumably there is debate among the Maths project members about such deletions. After a prod, there is some chance that a User can have the delete reversed, (yes?), but, if it deleted, who would detect its absence? There are thousands of articles deleted each week? And thousands added? And some overall lists of such articles? — Newbyguesses - Talk 09:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Browser Tabs and Slowness
Tabbed browsing is actually quite simple. Send me an email message (so I can get your email address without you posting it), and I'll reply with a screenshot. I recommend Firefox (and GNU/Linux), but IE7 (which you can run in Windows XP) also offers tabbed browsing. Do you use dialup? That would partially explain why you find everything slow. Superm401 - Talk 04:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this article, Logic, the subsection 3.5 Mathematical Logic which is linked to by this link, Logic#Mathematical Logic, contains wikitext for a link to Hilbert's Program and in plain text on the next line "Hilbert's Program".
Currently, such a link is redirected to Hilbert's program, noting the case-sensitivity. This suggests to me that, following the overturn of some previous action, some consensus of editors of at least this mathProject article now prefer the latter style, which would seem to accord with normal english usage; (Hilbert's program is a term applied to a project announced by David Hilbert as part of an address to fellow mathematicians, and not to my knowledge published as a book, so never formally named).
My action then, is to follow what links I can to ascertain what practice exists, so I go to Hilbert's program and click on what links here. Also, by asking on help:RefDesk, or through the Mathematics Portal, one could contact other editors and thus assistance in assessing the issues involved (these minor issues) – and, with minor edits, correct, or update, the relevant pages. (That's what minor edits do.) — Newbyguesses - Talk 04:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
further comments to follow... — Newbyguesses - Talk 04:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The change-over from "Program" to "program", in the article now known as Hilbert's program was initiated into the text it would appear by this edit on 20 May 2006 UTC 00:16 , without an edit summary, presumably as the article's renaming would be adequate summary.
The current talkpage has a single entry, from 2006, which refers to Hilbert's Program, and not Hilbert's program. Newbyguesses - Talk 04:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This edit 12 June 2007 04:37UTC with this edit summary addressed a minor issue. If further instances come to hand, they would be addressed by minor edits. — User:-Newbyguesses - Talk 04:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Note To Editors was placed as the last of two entries on Talk:Hilbert's program with this edit of 12 June 2007 at 05:04UTC.
The text of that note reads - The usage of the terminology, "Hilbert's program", rather than "Hilbert's Program" became established after the date of the post of 7 June 2006 above, and continues currently, as of the date of this post. --(date)
-- That's what minor edits do! —User:Newbyguesses - Talk 00:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford English Dictionary
Note to editors - WP has an article on the Oxford English Dictionary.
As a reference, this work may be referred to as -
Oxford English Dictionary, second edition, edited by John Simpson and Edmund Weiner, Clarendon Press, 1989, twenty volumes, hardcover, ISBN 0-19-861186-2. (Section6 - further reading)
The word with the longest entry is the verb set. The OED describes over 430 senses of this word, and defines them in an entry of approximately 60,000 words. The word with the longest entry is the verb set. The OED describes over 430 senses of this word, and defines them in an entry of approximately 60,000 words. (Notes) — Newbyguesses - Talk 07:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Cambridge Guide to English Usage
- The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, Pam Peters, first published 2004 by The Press Syndicate Of The University Of Cambridge (Cambridge University Press) ISBN 0 521 62181 X (hardback) is an A-Z reference book, providing advice and examples illustrating points of grammar, spelling, word meaning, punctuation and covering issues pertinent to effective writing and argument. It incorporates research and data from large corpora of American and British English. Here are summaries for a small number of entries, rewritten slightly, as research.
-
The final entry on page 200 is for fallacies and provides an extensive list of fallacies in the use of words, and, continuing onto page 201, lists logical fallacies and Diversionary arguments. The first entry under Fallacies in the use of words is for false analogy, and the second entry is for Reification: when an abstract word is used as if it referred to a concrete entity[1]
—(following interpolation is OR, NewbyG) This common type of fallacious word usage makes its greatest impact when abstract terms are accepted at face value, as both representing a concrete entity, and as having by definition the exact meaning which was assigned as a term of art in some field or discussion by some particular interested party. In the English language, every noun is an opportunity to succumb to this fallacy.
Factious, factitious and fractious are explicated on page 199, Factious and fractious both imply uncooperative behaviour. Factitious has the meaning of being artificial or contrived.[2]
On page 67, the phrase beg the question is discussed,[3]and explained as a tactic of argument in which a speaker or writer in the course of the argument, or at its beginning, assumes the fundamental premise or issue that ought to be discussed; an example is provided to illustrate the case in which the actual terms of definition used in a discussion will, if improperly asserted, compromise the scope of the discussion.
The availability of this reference work through a public library, followed by private perusal and comprehension allows the claim that this current slight usage, rewritten to a reasonable degree into presently-conceived language, is allowable under fair use for study purposes, and suitable for inclusion in a reference section, which would be in compliance with GFDL. – Newbyguesses - Talk 10:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia
At Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia sections in articles: I think we've got consensus on this wording: Some trivia is especially tangential or irrelevant, and may not warrant inclusion at all. You didn't specifically mention this wording, which I referred to as the "longstanding" wording, but I assume it's acceptable to you since you said any wording that meets consensus is OK with you. --Coppertwig 13:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who wants to go ahead; with this wording - Some trivia is especially tangential or irrelevant, and may not warrant inclusion at all. is acceptable to me, quite. Thankyou for letting me know, I will review the page when I get a chance. – Newbyguesses - Talk 14:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think there seems to be a consensus. I think the page-protection will expire automatically in a little over 24 hours and then we can put in the wording everyone seems to accept. --Coppertwig 15:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note :-
Suggested wording changes were --
"Some trivia is especially tangential or irrelevant, and may not warrant merging."
which was changed to
"Some trivia is especially tangential or irrelevant, and may not warrant inclusion at all."
by the edit of 04:056, 27 February 2007,
which was deleted by the edit of 00:10 21 March 2007, replaced, in part by "... Deletion of entire trivia sections with no effort to help integrate ..."
Reinstated by edit 00:34 of same date
Standing (other than V-attacks), until being replaced by this wording -- "Other entries may be excessively tangential to the subject of the article, although exactly what is "excessively tangential" may not be agreed upon by the editors of an article." -- by the edit 17:10 on 31 May 2007
and changed to -- "Other entries may be excessively tangential to the subject of the article, or irrelevant, and may not warrant inclusion at all." -- by the edit of 17:17UTC (31 May)
which became -- "Other entries may be excessively tangential to the subject of the article, although this requires some subjective evaluation. Discussion may be needed in some cases to determine if material warrants inclusion." (edit, 20:12UTC 31 May 2007)
Then, -- "Other entries may be excessively tangential to the subject of the article, or irrelevant, and may not warrant inclusion at all." (UTC 01:09 June 1)
Then -- "Other entries may be excessively tangential to the subject of the article, although this requires some subjective evaluation. Discussion may be needed in some cases to determine if material warrants inclusion." -- (02:36UTC 2 June)
Thus, further to the 58 edits in early June, going back a mere further 8 edits would have brought to light the text of the "long-standing wording". Just 8 more diffs would have done it! — &mustdash-Newbyguesses - Talk 21:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: WP:ATSIA
Hi User:edgarde, referring to this post, and in particular the last sentence,
[1]
does it still seem the case, noting the changes since the page-protect came off, on 19 June, (07) that stalemate is to be the outcome? The guideline looks good to me currently, (well, I would say that) though it should be renamed WP:AIL (Avoid irrelevant lists?) That is my present inclination for this guideline. Any amplification of your erudite positions is welcomed, any talkpage is fine, Regards, and not trivially, user:Newbyguesses - Talk 04:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for messaging me.
I don't think WP:AVTRIVIA is broken. I think it's a good guideline, and I think the changes being introduced today lack perspective.
My comment toward Fr. Goose specificly referred to his initiative to introduce language and methods that overall would discourage deletion of trivia (and seemed even to have that intent), when Wikipedia cleanup is substantially backlogged and adding bureacracy to the trivia cleanup process would make things worse.
I think removing references to "trivia" from a guideline that was created specifically to address the problem of trivia sections (as opposed to a more politically-named abstraction) makes the guideline less effective. The benefit being fought for is maybe 1 less piece of "useful" "trivia" is spared from deletion for every 10 that needs deletion but is also spared. And the 1 valuable item would likely be restored by someone watching the page. / edgarde 05:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think I now agree with the position you outline, as I understand it. I think the guideline is fine, and its name satisfactory. The points you make about cleanup are pertinent. I have no wish to proceed with a name-change for the page, for the sake of it, if it would lead to mis-direction for editors seeking guidance. My point is that the guideline apply more widely, to all content, however I see the value of deliniating more closely here to a "word', which is "trivia" which is widely understood. I hope, indeed, to have no more editorial contributions to the project page presently, subject to further cogitation upon the comments of concerned and considerate contributors. As always, Newbyguesses - Talk 05:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
References
references[4] for the word — reference — defn 2. something that can be referred to as an authority or standard. (p586, at bottom, then 587 at top) –The Everyday Oxford Dictionary (1981) Oxford University Press
^The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, Pam Peters, Cambridge University Press2004 ISBN 0 521 62181 X,pages 200-201
^The Cambridge Guide to English Usage (2004), page 199
Any material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed at any time.
Take note before Posting below this Notice (notice)
When choosing a NEW TOPIC HEADING PLEASE, Please, Please consider using for MY sake, any title not including the T-word ((No Trivia Here)) — &mdash: — Newbyguesses - Talk 12:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wardrobe
The move request has been noted over at WP:RM (which is how I came about this discussion in the first place), so I think it's best to leave things as they are for the time being. Give others a chance to have their say, and the matter will be dealt with by an administrator in due course. I would think we'll need an admin to carry out the move anyway. PC78 06:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pi are not square. Pi are round. Cornbread are square.
In case you missed it on the Original Research talk page, The Indiana government actually did try and legislate Pi to be 3.2, in the late 1890s. The Indiana Pi Bill --Thespian 10:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks User:Thespian – Now I see that the Indiana House Bill No. 246, 1897, known as the Indiana pi bill, was "Passed February 5th, 1897 - Ayes - 67 - Noes -0- "
Now, I see I was confused by the hoax Alabama legislature attempt to regulate PI (or pie, or cornbread) as per the April 1998 newsletter of New Mexicans for Science and Reason mentioned in the article April Fools' Day. How very interesting! — Newbyguesses - Talk 11:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LiquidThreads
We were briefly discussing the deficiencies in MediaWiki's talk page implementations. I just found out that a new kind of talk page, called LiquidThreads, is being developed for MediaWiki. Superm401 - Talk 05:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, – the latest on LiquidThreads, [2], separate namespaces suggested. Media Wiki 2 has a release date of when? Latest it seems, on MediaWiki 2.0, Please note that there are no actual plans for this at this time. Interesting.Newbyguesses - Talk 06:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
gender-neutral language
Thanks for your comment. I'll pass the first draft by you for feedback before releasing it into the lion's den. I'm gearing up for a good fight. Tony 14:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Latest draft
I'm curious to know if the new draft of User:Father_Goose/Relevance still meets with your approval. Is it an improvement over the prior release (2.1)? Would you disagree in any way with any of the changes I made?--Father Goose 08:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the work you are putting in, Fr. Goose, in looking at the new draft now, I see improvement over previous draft(s). I am quite happy now with the current draft for "Relevance".
There is a need for such a guideline for Relevance, it remains to be seen if the general community concur, or are happy, at this time, to approve this draft. I am just wondering out loud, is the idea to give guidance to an editor who is considering adding information and seeks criteria to assess the worth of material at hand, or is it written from the point of view of an editor perusing some possibly dubious material already in an article, and thus seeking guidance as to whether to delete material? Both cases should be addressed, and they probably are, indeed probably these cases coincide closely, can be dealt with simultaneously.
Putting oneself in the chair of a likely reader, it would be ideal if the answer to one's specific question were to almost "hit one in the face" upon consultation of a guideline, the guideline being salted with numerous valuable "nuggets" of information. It seems such was the advice absorbed from Review B, resulting in a tightening up and this current draft. Well, work is never finished, and work is never perfect, but this draft is good, it has gone forward from draft one, and ought to replace the current place-holder page suitably. U-Newbyguesses - Talk 10:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to hear you feel it's an improvement. I chose to cast its tone as advice to editors adding material, with "removal instructions" only implied. I am certain those who want to remove "irrelevant" material will cite the guideline when they feel another editor's material does not comply with it.
Although I don't want to get into an edit war with WikiLen, we are in a "fork war" regardless. I feel his draft is still far away from reflecting consensus (and still difficult to understand). If you wish to replace the main Wikipedia:Relevance page with my latest draft, I will not stop you, although I'd rather not revert if WikiLen reverts you. With any luck, other editors will voice their approval of my draft, and things can continue moving forward from there.
Are you saying it still fails to "hit you in the face"? What specific question(s) are you asking, as a reader? Thanks again.--Father Goose 16:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for message, Father Goose. Well, after a sleep, some ideas came. The reference to WP:NOT ought to be at the top, I think now - NOT rules out whole classes of articles, Relevance is narrower in scope, dealing with one article at a time. I am more an adder of ideas than an originator at this age of man, it has taken a while, but I have had some thoughts during the night. [The three ages of man 1. - Born, knowing nothing 3. - Dead, knowing nothing 2. - in between, same.] Now, back to work, Yes, I am happy with the draft. Yes, I counsel tightening more, always. Look at IAR, which is, or should be, brevity in extremis, and it is complemented by a discursive, also useful piece WIARM.
The See Also's in the draft are goodly chosen, WP:NOT is inappropriate here, it is a precursor to REL, not an after (thinks).
I am looking again, there is no compelling urgency to replace the place-holder page. My understanding of the position vis-a-vis the two editors was that it was co-operative in nature, certainly up to a pleasing point. My understanding of the matter was that REL2 was more or less automatically going back up on the page if REL3 could not be brought up to snuff, which it wasn't.
You could put it up rightly, in my opinion, User:WikiLen would wish to work more on that draft, essay, in user-space, and not fight to put it up where it doesn't work. REL3 would get reverted out if it were put up. I can't speak for how other editors will greet REL2+, one in particular had bad things to say concerning "instruction creep". There were flaws in that editor's argument, not least of which was an ill-thought out suggestion to "merge" ATS with REL and a paragraph from MOS?? So, when the rewrite is finished, it would seem appropriate for yourself to restore it to the project page. Other editors, myself included, would want to revert out any essay, or other material which were put up; no other material (WL's draft) has been commented on favourably, let alone attained consensus. However, if best, another editor (this one) could put REL2+ up soonish, not immediately.
The thing with WP:NOT banged some brain-cells — it's curious that another relevant, but totally different guideline is WP:NOTABILITY, (note the noticable similarity in nomenclature). I have some suggested material which jumps off from this springboard, gonna post it on the talk-page. It represents a new idea for the lead, (sorry about that) but which I think leads well onto the meat of REL2+. As always, my stuff is offered as is, where is, and may be edited mercilessly. There may be something interesting in it, on the other hand, maybe just a flight of fancy.
Specifically to REL2+, its best feature is in my opinion, a correct approach to policy matters, not bending ears in favour of any particular "position". That is a very, very, important primary consideration, well navigated in REL2+. The worst point for REL2+, (again, in this editor's opinion) is some stodginess of language, ploddy word-choices, here and there. For instance "addresses" in the opening line is a "tired" word, over-used (useful occasionally nonetheless) - I wanted to twk it to "concerns", but that alliterated with "content", which put me off. Getting the policy implications right is paramount, style much less so. Although, a pleasing style and readability are close kin.
Style, undefinable, is something I kinda obsess about, I see so many articles (in mainspace) that are let down by trite word-choice, trite sentences, and ill-formed expression. There is a kind of cowardice brought on by knowing the words must please a wide range of readers, on many continents, and of varying educational level, which leads to lame writing.
I actually think REL2+ achieves a pretty fair style - the test of good style is that it communicates a message clearly, whatever the message be, and as said, that is a strength of REL2+, that it was thought during the rewrite, what was the appropriate message to send, and then words found to convey it.
This is getting long, I am a preacher of brevity who cannot avoid in the next breath self-contradiction, isnt it always the way? Hope there is some use in the material I post on discussion page, but what I am getting at only goes so far, and may be thus, problematical, I do understand. Yes, your idea to address, in the first instance, editors wishing to "add" material is the clearest way forward, Cheers, Newbyguesses - Talk 00:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I figured out a decent way to fit WP:NOT in the first paragraph along with WP:N and WP:EL. I also changed "addresses relevance" to "pertains to relevance"; I don't know if you will view that as an improvement.
If someone other than I put my proposal back at WP:REL, that would help to demonstrate that my proposal has at least some "community approval". If I did it, it might come across as just a "Father Goose vs. WikiLen" move. I consider the current draft at User:Father Goose/Relevance to be release-ready, so if you would like to move it, be my guest.
I'm not sure what to do with the material you posted at User talk:Father Goose/Relevance. My two highest priorities for the proposal right now are to keep it brief and not wrong. I don't feel that what you posted there was brief or "right" (it included too many subjective terms). If the guideline wanders off in any incorrect or unnecessary direction, that will hold up its acceptance. Once it has the "community stamp of approval", any adjustments we make will hopefully be in view of a larger, less antagonistic audience.
As for wording tweaks, that can be done at any time. Are there any other parts where you feel the wording is stodgy? There is indeed always room for improvement. Thanks again for your help.--Father Goose 06:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I will "move" the release-ready version in, if that suits you. (Cut-and-paste method, since I have never done an "official" page-move.) No problems with that are there, i.e. page histories will be preserved? If I move the material in, I will not feel in a position to revert out any immediate attack on it, so someone else (the perpendicular perpetrator, presumably) would have that responsibility. The other way, if you do the 'move', community acceptance is demonstrated when the material stands (I think it will), or, in the case of inferior matt. being added, when that gets reverted out, also would demonstrate the viability of REL+. Think on it a bit, and let me know your preference. If I do it, it is soon, or maybe not till a day or so, as RL is coming to get me, (the weekend). Agreed, to your point about tweaks, there is no defect in the version you have worked up, but it will get tweaked in the normal way. Newbyguesses - Talk 06:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cut-and-paste is the correct way in this case; in fact, you can't page-move over an existing page. Do it whenever the timing is good for you.--Father Goose 06:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The move is DONE. Have a nice weekend! Newbyguesses - Talk 06:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request for comment
Newbyguesses, from your posts I am unable to tell if you have read the latest version (REL4.1) on my side of the fork. I would like to have your impression and/or critique of it posted at the talk page. You need not worry about being kind and circumspect. The "hits you in the face" impression is the one I am looking for; so that I might know your opposition. thanks —WikiLen 20:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POL states "proposals should be advertised to solicit feedback and to reach a consensus"— its not an *essay* if you do that on the page.
Please explain, thanks. —WikiLen 05:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, my comment is here at the mediation. NewbyG.
Mediation?
I've asked WikiLen and Kevin Murray if they would agree to informal mediation (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal) regarding the disputes over Wikipedia:Relevance of content. If you consider yourself a party to the dispute, would you be willing to participate?--Father Goose 00:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for message. Yes, I do consider myself a party to the process at Wikipedia:Rel-Content. Yes, I am willing to participate in informal mediation. Yes, I do wish this were worked out with less drama on the talkpage. I will be commenting on the talkpage when the dust has settled a bit, I hope the hot reverting by those who have have reached 3RR limits will cool down now. Newbyguesses - Talk 00:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
have read the talkpage, but it did not make sense, since I am not a lawyer
calls for discussion on your part. Please ask for explanations at the talk page for those things you do not understand. —WikiLen 06:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
