→Date links (yet again): update |
m →Date links (yet again): ==Excellent work: Barnstar for you== |
||
Line 175: | Line 175: | ||
:::I've added something to this which I would welcome your input to. --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 14:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
:::I've added something to this which I would welcome your input to. --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 14:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
||
==Excellent work: Barnstar for you== |
|||
RE: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lodge_Committee&curid=2940125&diff=85612171&oldid=73882370] Thank you for being the wikipedia restoration expert :) on so many articles, |
|||
{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};" |
|||
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:Barnstar.png|100px]] |
|||
|rowspan="2" | |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Original Barnstar''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | This barnstar, the first on Wikipedia, is given to recognise particularly fine contributions to Wikipedia, to let people know that their hard work is seen and appreciated. Thanks for cleaning up so many articles! [[User:Travb|Travb]] ([[User talk:Travb|talk]]) 13:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
Revision as of 13:26, 4 November 2006
Welcome
- Please post new messages at the bottom of the page to prevent confusion.
- Please sign your comments. Type
~~~~
after your text or use the edit toolbar. - Please use section headings to separate conversation topics.
See: Welcome to Wikipedia, FAQ, Wikiquette, Be nice, and Talk page guidelines.
Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:
- Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try Wikipedia:How to edit a page.
- To sign your posts (on talk pages, Articles for deletion page etc.) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes).
- You can experiment in the test area.
- You can get help at the Help Desk
- Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:How to write a great article
Welcome!! --Gurubrahma 19:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Maintenance note
I maintain this page by deleting items over 30 days old. See my history, if you want to look further back. Thanks Hmains 16:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Monobook
You may wish to make use of a 'Dates' tab in edit mode that will help with unlinking unnecessary date links. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. It also provides a 'Units' tab. If you know what you are doing, you can copy and modify the subfiles as you wish. I just thought you might be interested. Regards. bobblewik 20:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- The reason it fails is because you refer to User:Hmains/monobook.js/dates.js and User:Hmains/monobook.js/unitformatter.js and these articles do not exist. You have two options:
- Option 1. As described in the first 4 sentences above, make your monobook identical to mine. Then it will use the existing articles User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/dates.js and User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/unitformatter.js.
- Option 2. As described in the last 2 sentences, create your own subfiles User:Hmains/monobook.js/dates.js and User:Hmains/monobook.js/unitformatter.js by copying the details from User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/dates.js and User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/unitformatter.js.
- Try again. I am happy to walk you through the process. So feel free to ask me again. bobblewik 12:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Date links
Are you having any more problems from Rebecca? --David Mestel(Talk) 16:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'll rephrase that - are you having any more problems from anyone? --David Mestel(Talk) 06:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Featured list candidate
I thought you'd like to know that List of United States federal legislation has been nominated to be a Featured List. It needs 4 votes by October 2 2006.
As I have labored hard on the article, I would appreciate your looking it over. You can find a discussion here: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States federal legislation.
Thank you!
—Markles 23:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
AMA advocate
Hi, I'm User:Pedant I've been asked to take over your advocacy case, would you take a moment and summarise the current status of your date-delinking conflict for me? Thanks. It would be most convenient for me if we keep this discussion here:User:Pedant/Hmains User:Pedant 02:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
More here ... User:Pedant 06:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I've responded to your summary here would you respond to my questions there please? And please contact me on my talk page if this flares up again. User:Pedant 17:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Categories
Thanks for your work on the categories of Cuban articles. There is a discussion about the recategorisation of the Cuban history articles on the United States embargo against Cuba talk page. --Zleitzen 03:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Military History of Canada in the Second World War
Your copyedits in that article have been reverted. The "correct" name of the conflict in Canada is "Second World War". Please see the talk page for a discussion of this. "World War II" is an American term. I refer to usage in "official" military histories in both nations. Thanks.Michael DoroshTalk 03:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Rename of Category:United States Courts of Appeals judges
I have a followup question with regards to this rename. Could you please respond there?
— DLJessup (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Re: Fauna by state
Thanks for keeping me informed. Where do I find the discussion? —Viriditas | Talk 04:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, ok. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 04:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- I hard-coded the link here. —Viriditas | Talk 04:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Fauna, flora, etc. categories
Just so you know: I had started doing a bird page: List of Arizona-SW birds (Yuma County, Arizona) after attempting another less knowledgeable page: List of birds, Yuma, Arizona (low deserts, river, elevations), but that led to the category of the Category:Lower Colorado River Valley, after the Category:Sonoran Desert, cat: Chihuahuan, etc. When I found that somebody had started the "Natural history of cats", with the Fauna and Flora, I did the entire Western U.S.
- I consider my greatest naming challenge, what I came up with for the Plains-Midwest: Category:Trees of Plains-Midwest U.S., Category:Fauna of Plains-Midwest U.S., Category:Flora of Plains-Midwest U.S.. Since I went from Western US to Canada province and to New England, I then west to SE US.
- The only other states that have been done by the "What links here", slowly looking at the pages: are: Category:Natural history of West Virginia, Category:Natural history of Nova Scotia, Category:Natural history of Maine. I just started back in the Midwest: Category:Natural history of Arkansas, Category:Natural history of Louisiana, Category:Natural history of West Virginia, and I am now doing: Category:Natural history of Oklahoma. But I have been learning some things about the Snakes, Amphibians, Fish, etc.
So, I am not terribly concerned with what any "No It All" big wigs are up to. I did get help when I was trying to organize new sub-regional categories.
And I don't believe in Nesting everything, three layers deep, so YOU have no clue where, or WHAT to look for. (I think you are one of those nesting it underneath a category. A "table of contents" is always what I think the answer is, But, I know nesting things, hidden layers deep, is the ULTIMATE problem, that needs to be gotten around. You will see under for example Category:Flora of Northwestern United States, the Canadian cross border provinces listed. (The US border states need to also be listed ?)
To Regroup: after I did the bird page.... two things happed: List of Kansas birds, was nominated. I had copied it, and did all the edits.
- It took two edit sessions to fix up the Kansas list. The third thing I did was get the other individuals to address a ( ? ) I had inserted, where a bird was referenced, but not listed.
The second thing that happened, was ( 6-8 weeks after starting the big bird page), that I found the book on the Birds of the Lower Colorado River Valley. It answered most of the questions I had. (I even met a Bur. of Land Mngmt fellow who was a student in the book, doing Field work.)
So.... whatever Wikipedia does is irrelevant to ME. I know what is in my brain. I actually did the listing on the Rosetta Stone page of the Three stones, and the Decree of Canopus, and the Decree of Memphis (Ptolemy IV). I actually did some cuneiform, and did the Cylinder seal page. so... this category stuff is a diversion, from some of the Truths that 99 percent of the planet will NEVER know (cognizance) about ! I redid the Rosetta Stone after working on the Stone of Canopus; it took 3-months to copy the hieroglyphs. The first category I created, because of all the books I had gotten: was Category:Egyptian artefact types, and from cuneiform I did: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, but this effort was now 3-4 years ago. I did things like: Gardiner's Sign List with all the wikis for pages. It all evolved on its own.\\
Anyway, thanks,... I had noticed, obviously. Michael-in the Sonoran Desert,....Mmcannis 04:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- and I also was in the Air Force. thanks again. A Desert Rat-Michael...Mmcannis 04:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
texas i join
im on the taxas long horns football team so ill help u its my favorite state and i love to find information
Hi, since you commented (so kindly) in the FAC discussion for this article I was wondering if you would be interested in voting to support or oppose its candidature. The article has been a FAC for three weeks now and there have been no comments or votes for some time. Thanks for your thoughts. Pinkville 01:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for checking it out, copyedits, and vote! Pinkville 02:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Re: Red Scare
Sorry I didn't answer you sooner, I haven't been on Wikipedia in a while... I did start to write the article for the First Red Scare with the intent to copy and paste what was on the original Red Scare page, but it wasn't all that great, so I pretty much rewrote it... it seems to be much better now though thanks to others. I tried to write npov, but i don't know how well I did.
I haven't gotten a chance to start the Second Red Scare yet, if you could help that'd be great. And I'm not much acquainted with red scares in any nations other than the US, so I'd be pretty much useless in rewriting the original to make it more global. Could you help? Thanks a lot--BigShock 00:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
A favor
Could you look at John Mercer Brooke and do the basic cleanup? It's an important subject, and I got into a scrap with the editor largely responsible for adding content. It's actually pretty interesting but needs copyedit desperately. I want to be nice and stay out of it, hoping this editor can see this is a group effort. Thanks even if you choose not. BusterD 03:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC) Thanks! BusterD 04:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Date links (yet again)
I thought I'd leave a friendly note, here, about your extensive de-linking of dates during "copy-editing". But I see that such has already been done by other objecting parties, and seemingly to no avail: So far as I can see, you've just kept going around de-linking dates in many articles, without discussing it with anyone in the particular cases, and without responding to the objections here.
Therefore, much to my regret, this note cannot be altogether friendly. Carrying on in the manner you have done is poor manners. If you want to insist on these changes, civility dictates that you at least discuss them with folk who think otherwise, and reach and abide by a consensus. It seems to me, though, that such consensus has, in effect, already been reached, perhaps tacitly by the mere evolution of custom within Wikipedia, and that said consensus is for dates to be linked within articles, each date upon its first occurrence in a given article.
This treatment for dates seems only sensible to me. The date-links give a reader handy access to useful context -- major events in the world at large during the year in question. Nor do they do any harm that I can see.
So, if you have a case to make for de-linking dates, please make it. And if you know of some decision reached, among Wikipedians, to de-link dates according to the style of your edits, please give direction to the relevant discussion, statement of policy, or recommendation.
But stop going around just de-linking dates in articles, without comment. It's not polite.
Lonewolf BC 17:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have copied your reply, below, from my own "User talk" page. It is better to keep this discussion in one place. Whereas it began here (leaving aside the edits that have prompted it) let it be kept here. Incidentally, you oughtn't have used -- nay, created -- my "User" page for the purpose of anwering me. I trust that this was a mere oversight, given that you repeated the same material on my "Talk" page an hour later. However, and especially on the chance that it was not an oversight, please leave my User page to me, and use my Talk page for talking with me.
- Lonewolf BC 03:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC) (originally at 02:39, in rougher form)
- Here, then, is your reply:
Dates
- - I believe you may be talking about de-linking years, not 'dates' since I do not delink 'dates' composed of Month/Day or Month/Day/Year--such dates are left as links, as suggested by WP Date guidelines so that they may be formatted either as Month/Day Day/ Month etc according to user taste.
- - There is nothing in the WP date guidelines that encourages the linking of standalone years or month-years. On the contrary, there is there are statements referring to this a unnecessary linking providing no benefit to articles.
- - There is nothing in the WP date guidelines that I or anyone else must discuss linking or delinking of dates prior to doing so--just as there is no requirement to generally discuss any editing changes prior to making the edit.
- - I have had my work reviewed by a number of WP Admins, and they do not disagree with my edits, feeling that the current excessive date linking is a 'wrong' in WP that needs to be fixed. One Admin who was disrupting my editing has ceased to do so after various other admins objected to what she was doing and saying.
- - I always discuss any questions about my of my edits with any editors who have questions about an article I edit. Such discussions are usually at the article talk page or a back and forth between my talk page and their talk page, depending on whatever we mutually do. Any you must know, most editors just edit, they do not discuss things--for good or for ill.
- - I do not find any WP editing guideline that says anything about years being linked the first time they appear in an article. Some articles have one year referenced; others have references to dozens and dozens of different years. I have not previously seen this first-year-linking theory advanced anywhere as an argument for year links.
- - Regarding substance, I do not see that a link to a year or each and every year in an article provides any 'context' to anything. Looking at year 2000, for example, gives me no context in an article that says "xx person moved to yy country in 2000". Context is provided by such mechanisms as timelines, many of which are available in WP or by the reader, being curious about a certain year, searching for it.
- - I am sorry if you think my editing is 'impolite', but this does not seem to be a WP consideration that overrides good edit results, which I believe I am achieving with my work that includes a good deal of editing improvement to the articles I work on, not just my work on years--unless that is the only improvement I see that needs to be made to an article.
- - Thank you for the politeness of your note. I do not like to disagree with people, but here I do.
- Hmains 00:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
If you wish to actually get consensus to make these edits, feel free to do so. If, on the other hand, you continue to make these be damned of what anyone else thinks, I will begin my systematic reversions again until you get the message that this is unacceptable. I have reverted all today's batch, and will proceed to shoot any future ones on sight as in the past. Rebecca 02:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- And again. Please save the ad hominems - I have no idea who Lonewolf BC is, but he's very far from the first to take issue with people mass-delinking in blatant disregard of opposing views on the matter. Rebecca 09:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Harold, thank you for your message. I am discussing the matter you raised with Rebecca and have left a message for LonewolfBC. A couple of immediate thoughts that might help you; accusing or implying that editors you are in disagreement with are sockpuppets of one another isn't likely to create a collegial atmosphere here or to defuse the (I think unwarranted) tensions that seem to have arisen. Another is that you might consider leaving more informative edit summaries when you do work like this; apart from anything else, it would make it easier for someone like myself trying to review your edits! Best wishes --Guinnog 11:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Rebecca: I apologize to you for thinking you were using a different userid. I mis-understood the situation. After I realized my mistake, it was too late to fix it. Sorry. Hmains 02:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well done for your apology, Harold, that moves things forward a bit. I hope you do not mind but I've pasted it to Rebecca herself, along with my proposal that you desist from using semi-automated methods to delink dates while we discuss the best way to clarify the policy. --Guinnog 11:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Indiscriminate mass date delinking will get you reverted, no matter what edit summaries you use. Rebecca 23:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I tried to follow your suggestion. The trouble is that Rebecca will never agree with any of your suggestons or similar ones made by other administrators and no one does anything about it. She had stated repeatedly that she will revert all delinking of dates no matter what anyone says. Will you do anything about it? Hmains 03:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please see User:Guinnog/date_linking and make your comment there. --Guinnog 04:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've added something to this which I would welcome your input to. --Guinnog 14:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Excellent work: Barnstar for you
RE: [1] Thank you for being the wikipedia restoration expert :) on so many articles,
The Original Barnstar | ||
This barnstar, the first on Wikipedia, is given to recognise particularly fine contributions to Wikipedia, to let people know that their hard work is seen and appreciated. Thanks for cleaning up so many articles! Travb (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC) |