Welcome to my talk page!
If you would like to leave me a new message, click here, or click on the new section tab at the top of this page. I'll be sure to get back to you within 24 hours. Try to help other editors out by signing your comments with "~~~~". Thanks for stopping by!
Arbitrarily0, I think the Wisely article is about ready to go. It is still in my sandbox for now. I'd love if you could look to make sure it is not to much like an advertisement or too promotional. Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Michael. I made some changes, and left my rationale at User talk:Michael Barera/Sandbox. The sandbox talk page should be moved into the article space along with the article. Excellent work on the article - it is succinct and informational. Have a nice weekend, Arbitrarily0(talk) 13:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Arbitrarily0. I really appreciate your help on this one! Michael Barera (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Update: I've moved the article to the mainspace and nominated it at DYK. Due to your contributions to the article while it was still in my sandbox, which I greatly appreciate, I have listed you as "Author 2" on the nomination page. If you disagree with this decision, feel free to remove your name from the nomination. I just felt that adding your name was the best way to acknowledge your contributions to the article. Thanks again for all your help, and take care! Michael Barera (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I am a new Wikipeida user and I noticed that you are apart of the journalism wiki Project. I recently joined this project and I was wondering what would be the best way for me to contribute to this project as I will be working on it for class ?
I ammaking more of these for a knot guide I'm putting together elsewhere, though they're not animated. What do you have in mind?
P.S. I've actually been editing Wikipedia longer than you have, though I'm not nearly as prolific. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Excellent. Mostly, I just wanted to salute you for your work! I am also glad that you are using Wikimedia Commons. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help you with the wiki-side of the process. Best regards, Arbitrarily0(talk) 19:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I know there was a discussion a couple of years ago regarding Highlight Industries' page on Wikipedia, resulting in deletion. The company would like to revisit having a page. I have been compiling information and articles on Highlight and building an outline for a potential article/page, and upon creating an account and attempting to start an article I was asked to contact you about revisiting this idea. I'd love to get your input on the matter, and figure out what steps I need to take next for submitting information, etc. Thanks for your time!
To be honest, I'm surprised anyone looks at my user page. My edits of late are generally inconsequential.
My personal wiki began on Linux using the MySQL database. It was probably Fedora Core back then. This is a standard configuration and there are many online tutorials that will walk you through the process.
Eventually I set up my own home network server under FreeBSD (using the ZFS file system) and switched my wiki to use the PostgreSQL database, which runs a bit again the grain. This is all great technology, but it requires fairly significant chops. I don't recommend my current configuration to non-professionals.
There are also options just to have your wiki hosted in the cloud, or to use an existing cloud service such as Evernote (I've never used this myself0.
The good thing with MediaWiki is that once you get it set up, you can go years without doing much maintenance. However, there are many bits and pieces to mess with during installation if you want all the usual features (image uploads, thumbnails, etc.)
The other side is that an empty wiki can become highly disorganized very quickly. There's a knack to creating the appropriate page names such that you can naturally find them again, and so that your notes cleave on natural boundaries.
I created a template called "up" which I put at the top of many pages to give my wiki some hierarchical structure.
For example, I've recently taken a shine to freethinking, by which I mean the philosophical root system I've long taken for granted. It's hard to keep all the philosophers and eras organized in my head, so I have many of them grouped under an umbrella page named Age of Enlightenment. This page itself doesn't mean anything to me, but having it there prevents me from inadvertently covering the same material in pages with subtly different names.
Wikipedia is less hierarchical and makes more use of categories for this kind of thing. But your own mind is not like that, trust me. You need at least a few eyeballs stacked into a pyramid to keep your coverage straight.
Creating pages with the names of people is A Good Thing. People are fixed reference points. Ideas are not.
For example, create a page called [[Roger Ebert]]. Create a separate page for [[symbolism]]. Create a third page [[Roger Ebert on symbolism in the movies]] and make sure this last page prominently links upward to a fourth page [[symbolism in the movies]] which links upward to the vapid umbrella page [[symbolism]]. Now you can find your way around in your own idea cloud, plus add more linkages as they come to you without having to wrestle an existing page in half.
The problem with hierarchy is that it taps on the taxonomic reflex arc until the hierarchy starts to seem more important than the actual content (we've all experienced this on committees). But really, with a wiki the main thing is just to keep accumulating more asphalt (primary pages) and from time to time you paint some coloured lines and lane markers to help maintain your bearings.
This all works for me because I'm fundamentally a lateral thinker. One of the stated goals of Getting Things Done is to organize yourself so that you never have to think the same thought twice. For me, this is exactly backwards. My wiki exists so that I can think the same thoughts over and over and over again, but spaced out in time and coming at it each time from a different direction.
So you can see that I use my wiki primary to achieve spaced repetition. It's a fairly heavy commitment where I amass all my little ideas over the long term. I also make heavy use of a voice recorder when there are too many ideas coming at me too fast to stitch into my wiki. Sometimes I'll just put a link in my wiki to a voice recorder file stored elsewhere on my server. Other times I'll go back and explode the recording into all the separate tendrils.
That covers two or three sides of the elephant. If you wish to refine your question, ping me again on my user page. — MaxEnt 23:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, MaxEnt, for your extremely thorough response! This is very helpful, Arbitrarily0(talk) 19:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Arbitrarily0. Pls could you to correct your map of the 37th Chess Olympiad 2006 - Austria did take part in both the open and women's division (77th and 58th place, respectively). --KnightMove (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks KnightMove. I have corrected this. Arbitrarily0(talk) 00:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your note about the Michigan Wikipedians. I'm no longer in Ann Arbor, but maybe I'll still be able to attend an event someday. And I am interested in what the group does. Best wishes! - CocoaZen (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Some 5 years ago I added a paragraph to an existing article about Montréal videographer Luc Courchesne on English Wikipedia. I also added more or less the same content on a similar page on the French counterpart of Wikipedia at .
A few months later I was shocked to discover that someone had deleted the English version of the article for the following reason: "Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". I could argue that the person in question was deemed sufficiently important to have had an article written about him before I came along, and he deserved even more recognition after I had added a paragraph that mentioned that he had captured on video a very significant piece of history on the morning of September 11, 2001, something almost equivalent to the Zapruder video of the JFK assassination. Was it precisely because of the sensitive matter of 9/11 that the article was deleted? I'll probably never know for sure but I strongly suspect it.
Anyway, I later discovered that for some reason you took it upon yourself to restore the article on 17 May 2010, as can be seen here: . It says that "41 revisions restored" but I can't locate the original article. Was your restoration attempt unsuccessful, and if so why? Oclupak (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Arbitrarily0. I hadn't thought of looking at the history. Now by going back through time I can see the article as I remembered it upon my last intervention, at 19:26, 24 May 2009, using my IP address which was, at the time, 220.127.116.11. I guess it was soon after that that I registered under the pseudonym Oclupak.
I can now see that it was an editor named Dan Murphy who took the initiative of removing most of the content of the article on 20 January 2010 at 13:05, followed by a request for speedy deletion by Ridernyc some 4 hours later.
So, thank you again for having shown me how to have access to those old revisions. Would it be too much to ask if you could restore the article with all the pertinent information as it was before it was deleted for no valid reason, in my humble opinion? As you are an administrator, you may be much more experimented than I am with the technicalities involved. Thanks in advance. Oclupak (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Greetings again! It is fine that the article is restored to its former state, as long as the article content is amended to comply with Wikipedia's policy for biographies of living person. All information in the article must be verifiable (established by secondary sources) and neutral. There is nothing clearly wrong with this version of the article, except that it is missing references. With references, it can be restored. Arbitrarily0(talk) 02:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)