Jump to content

User talk:Lexein: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MiszaBot III (talk | contribs)
597,462 edits
m Archiving 5 thread(s) (older than 24h) to /dev/null.
Line 16: Line 16:


{{tb|User talk:Adabow#SubRip}}
{{tb|User talk:Adabow#SubRip}}

== Thoughts on deletionism ==

I wrote this in response to a user whose article had been speedily deleted. It is my opinion.

# Asking a deletionist for "help in creating a better page" is a classic mistake. You can identify them using their history, and that of pages they've edited, and noting if articles tend to shrink, or be deleted. In my opinion: Deletionism is lazy, improves nothing, denies other editors the opportunity to make improvements upon spotting "citation needed" or ADV tags, or noting article discussions. Article deletion is worse: it destroys history, which makes improvement impossible by non-admin editors. Deletion is not an appropriate application of WP:BRD, since it goes against "Note that this process must be used with care and diplomacy".
# Brand new pages can be sandboxed, but aren't required to be. Sandboxing a page will tend to sideline it, and not attract cooperative, constructive contributions by non-deletionists. See WP:CREATE for actual WP consensus-driven advice on starting an article, noting the need for secondary, verifiable sources right up front.
# I suggest restarting the article with the same title and text and improve it right away, after reading WP:ADS and WP:NPOV. Your task, as an editor, is to primarily report what other sources (books, magazines, reviews) have already written about the topic. --Lexein (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
: Gotta say I agree with you thoroughly. And that includes, IMHO, changing user names in past records and archives. [[User:Timothy Perper|Timothy Perper]] ([[User talk:Timothy Perper|talk]]) 21:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


(ref for following 3O req. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&diff=prev&oldid=377056271 here]

== WP:3O ==

I see no point if the user is its not interested in talking. Might get him for [[WP:3RR]] or [[WP:AIV]] if all else fails try ANI. Sorry can't be more help[[User:Weaponbb7|Weaponbb7]] ([[User talk:Weaponbb7|talk]]) 03:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

== Artic Silver Test ==

Hi, Lexin.
The test on Artic Silver I did myself as computer technician, as part of my general interest in computers and cpu overheating. Because I am stating the test conditions, it is a test repeatable by anyone who cares to make it. Actually, another person making the test would not even have to use my conditions, just use the same conditions for all heat paste products being tested (by using the their same machine) with the same external air temperature. As my test is duplicable it is reliable scientific data until disproven. '''The ultimate test of science is always that an experiment/result is repeatable by others, not who did the experiment. '''

The problem with the article as it is, and many others on products, is that it basically constitutes advertising for the product, especially when it cites data (such as this one does) that can be proven wrong. The article as written will probably lead others into thinking the product is superior. Under the Wikipedia policy, opposing viewpoints have the right to be stated. As Artic Silver costs about 100 times what zinc oxide does, with no appreciable performance difference.

In science, when someone states data or a hypothesis, that is considered valid until someone disproves it. Before you change my statements, please make your own tests to determine the truth of the matter. Until them, my opposing data merits being there. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Psycano|Psycano]] ([[User talk:Psycano|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Psycano|contribs]]) 20:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

*Detailed response on your [[User talk:Psycano|on your talk]] page. --[[User:Lexein|Lexein]] ([[User talk:Lexein#top|talk]]) 19:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

==Nancy Vickers==
The first time he deleted the failed verification template, i just reverted. And so happened another time. Then, the third time, I think it's a vandalism '''<span style= "color:#FC74F8;">׺°”˜</span><span style= "color:#DF74FC;">`”°º×</span>[[User:Merynancy|<span style= "color:#D400CD;">ηυηzια</span>]]<span style= "color:#DF74FC;">׺°”˜</span><span style= "color:#FC74F8;">`”°º×</span>''' 08:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

== Re: CLI/Command Line Interface ==

I deleted the very earliest edit to the article because it was just a redirect. I then [[Help:Import|imported]] an edit from the [[Nost:Wikipedia:General disclaimer|Nostalgia Wikipedia]] and [[WP:HISTMERGE|history merged]] the earliest edit from [[CLI]] into the command-line interface article. I did this to make the page history of the article more accurately show who contributed to it, within the [[Wikipedia:Usemod article histories|limitations of the available page history entries from 2001]]. '''[[User:Graham87|Graham]]'''<font color="green">[[User talk:Graham87|87]]</font> 05:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
:That's an interesting thing to do - hadn't seen it done before. You may wish to post this at your Talk, or the article Talk, since it's certainly a curious chain of events in the move&deletion logs. I've been away from that article for a long time. Was involved for while, but had to [[WP:DISENGAGE]]. --[[User:Lexein|Lexein]] ([[User talk:Lexein#top|talk]]) 05:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


== Re: Patrol ==
== Re: Patrol ==
Line 62: Line 27:
::{{done}} editing and underconstruction is gone.--[[User:Lexein|Lexein]] ([[User talk:Lexein#top|talk]]) 17:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
::{{done}} editing and underconstruction is gone.--[[User:Lexein|Lexein]] ([[User talk:Lexein#top|talk]]) 17:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


== Re: Fedspeak DYK promotion premature? ==
== Re: Fedspeak DYK promotion premature? ==


Thanks for your concern. Before moving the hook to the prep area, I did confirm that the prior reviewer's objection (use of bare URLs) had been fixed and checked for any other obvious issues with the article. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]''&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Allen3|talk]]</sup> 19:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your concern. Before moving the hook to the prep area, I did confirm that the prior reviewer's objection (use of bare URLs) had been fixed and checked for any other obvious issues with the article. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]''&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Allen3|talk]]</sup> 19:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:10, 19 August 2010

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

Thank you!
Start a new Talk section.

SmackBot

<grin> Think of it as the smack at the end of a Swedish massage, or the smack of a Homer like pate when saying Doh! Whatever makes you comfortable... The name was never intended as a reprimand, although some users have taken it as such, just a passing pun. Regards Rich Farmbrough, 07:39 6 April 2007 (GMT).

SubRip

Hello, Lexein. You have new messages at Adabow's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Patrol

Yep, been trying to do some patrolling lately. Thanks. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 01:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Barlow DYK

I went to check Wendy Barlow for DYK, as you had "deferred it to another editor" since you had edited it. It still has the {{underconstruction}} tag on it, have you left it on by mistake or are you still editing it? Si Trew (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just found it there, so I left it. Seems like it should go, I guess. --Lexein (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done editing and underconstruction is gone.--Lexein (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Fedspeak DYK promotion premature?

Thanks for your concern. Before moving the hook to the prep area, I did confirm that the prior reviewer's objection (use of bare URLs) had been fixed and checked for any other obvious issues with the article. --Allen3 talk 19:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. --Lexein (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lexein&oldid=379800356"