User talk:Libcub

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Overcategorization[edit]

I did search through the archives, for "MUST be sourced" (wording from the box), and for "Categories for discussion". I didn't find anything relevant. Can you point me to the right place in the archive? Thanks. Libcub (talk) 07:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'll take a look.
Note that since I started at least one of the discussions, and as a result placed the template at the top of the page, I think I can state with fair accuracy that there was consensus.
Incidentally, I'm wondering what "actions" cause you to think contrary. - jc37 18:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Featured content subcategorization[edit]

== Ohmigod ==

Libcub, where was consensus generated to recatogorize all of our FA pages!? Marskell (talk) 08:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have rolled everything back. If you would like to discuss new or different categories, I'd suggest starting a thread at WT:FAC. Marskell (talk) 09:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That caused a lot of work; Libcub, I follow every featured article page, and have no idea why this recategorization was done. Please discuss future changes at WT:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Diffuse[edit]

I thought this was what category people meant when they talk about "diffusion". Does it actually mean something different? And is there an accepted term for this "breaking down"?--Kotniski (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I realize that some Wikipedians use the term in that way, but I don't think that meaning is shared in the general population. I don't think it is a good idea to create jargon when a regular word or phrase does the trick, because that is another barrier for entry by new folks. I think "break down" works on its own. I guess we could say "reduce" in the first instance, and "subcategorized" in the second, if you think that would be helpful.

news[edit]

last read = 090825

add: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Highlights

WMF blog[edit]

http://blog.wikimedia.org/

Wikimedia technical blog[edit]

http://techblog.wikimedia.org/

Wikizine[edit]

http://en.wikizine.org/

Latin America[edit]

Hi! I am having a little problem in the article Latin America with editor SamEV about Brazilian demographics. The main article about Brazil explains that the "Pardo" population is a a broad category that includes sub-categories such as the Mullattoes, Caboclos (known as "Mestizos" in Hispanic-America) and Cafuzos (known as "Zambo" in Hispanic America). In the Latin America article there is a table that says that 39.1% of Brazilian population are "mulatto" when the correct should be "Pardo". I explained that carefully in the talk page (See Talk:Latin America#Conflict with editor SamEV) but editor SamEV not only ignored my remarks but insist on reverting all my edits. I also tried to reach his in his own talk page but he simply erased my message. That is not a helpful behavior of his. I should had simply requested to an administrator to block him per the 3 eevert rules and asked for an arbitration since his behaving as his owns the article. However, I want to avoid that since the issue is something very simple, that is, nothing more than to clarify the table that present Brazilian demographics. As it is know, it says that there are 0% Caboclos or Mestizos (the majority of the population in Northern Region, Brazil, Northeast Region, Brazil and Central-West Region, Brazil) and 0% Cafuzos or Zambos. Could you, please, share your thoughts about it in the article talk page? Thank you very much, --Lecen (talk) 10:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Links[edit]

Hello... while I'm sure you mean well, please do not keep reverting in the link to Procon. There have been a number of discussions about that site in the past few years, in the wake of a series of heavy spamming of links and a promotional contest by the site itself (including a contest with a cash prize for its members if they helped to create a Wikipedia article about the site). It has been deemed unsuitable for use as a reference source - editors are advised to trace material found there back to the original source - and removed as an external link since a large amount of its content (such as the "undergod" page) is simply a series of pro- and con arguments. --Ckatzchatspy 18:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #114[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #115[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #116[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #117[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #118[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #119[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #120[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #121[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #122[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #114

Wikidata weekly summary #123[edit]