User talk:Nihiltres: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:49, 19 September 2007

This is Nihiltres' talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Nihiltres.

Keep discussion centralized: Nihiltres will respond on the same page as the original comment. If not posting on this talk page, please ping Nihiltres by prefixing the reponse with {{reply|Nihiltres}}.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (Like so: "Message text. ~~~~").

Start a new discussion section

Archives

2010–2014

2015–2019

2020–present

Los Pancakes

Hi, I am other user of the Wikipedia project, from Los Pancakes team, and I want to know your opinion about what subject we would talk about in our final article...Thanks a lot.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.254.101.49 (talk) 21:57, September 13, 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'll check some stuff out and post on your project page once I have a chance. :) Nihiltres^(t.l) 00:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metamodels on wikipedia.

Hi, I'm planning to put quite a large bunches of metamodels or uml diagrams on wikipedia for various systems, languages, etc. This is a very valuable technique to grasp easily the concepts of a domain. I've saw the your recent comment "Undid ... pedantic, and partial selfref"

As far as I understand this comment is related to the line "For more information on reading class diagrams of the UML standard see here".

I'm trying to figure out what does your action mean.

I read the "Undid" text. ok.

I think I understand the "pedantic" style (in fact I was wondering if one can put such diagram without explaination, so if a reference to class diagram is enough, that's simply fine).

I do not understand however the "partial selfref" statment. I can live with it, but since I want to contribute with many of such diagrams I would like to understand what is wrong here. Do a reference to class diagram which is a international standard is "partial selfref"? Since there is no link I don't know what "self" means here.

Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-Marie Favre (talk • contribs) 15:26, September 18, 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, there wasn't much space in the edit summary box, and my comment is somewhat vague. I really ~~hate it~~ find it frustrating when articles say "see such and such a page", and "here" is about as clear as silly putty, especially for people with screen readers. I know that my point is in the Manual of Style somewhere, though I don't know offhand. My objection to the edit you made is not so much with the content, but with the shift in style: articles should, as a general rule, reference themselves and their content minimally. The previous version linked to class diagram when explaining the diagram, and that should be enough, rather than the article repeatedly referencing itself and other articles. An article should be able to stand on its own. I'm sorry if I came across as rude, but I feel strongly about this as a stylistic issue. Nihiltres^(t.l) 16:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goddamned

I have reverted your changes to the goddamned article, because it hasn't been discussed yet.--Daanschr 17:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I'm inclined to want to leave that as a redirect, though, and it's not a violation of NPOV to make an undiscussed change. It would seem to make more sense to redirect it because the primary meaning is as a particular use of damn. Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary (see Wiktionary instead), I don't think an article on Goddamned itself will hold up. I redirected it instead of deleting it because a good redirect is preferable to a deletion (which was my 2^nd option). Cheers, Nihiltres^(t.l) 17:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goddamned has a strong cultural significance (as can be shown in the article), that is why i think this word requires a different article other than 'damnation'. I would like to bring to your attention that there are different articles called 'history' and 'archeology', while archeology could very well be regarded as a part of history.--Daanschr 18:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it as is then. I'm not overly worried about this. Nihiltres^(t.l) 18:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft trials

Hi,

I see that you deleted an edit I made regarding external links. I'm curious to know why they can't be there? They don't involve anything inappropriate and let users try what they are reading about without selling anything? It's another way to educate on Microsoft Office.

Not clear on what this violates?

Thanks for explaining this to me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vand0487 (talk • contribs) 18:25, September 18, 2007 (UTC)

It appeared to be spam. Spam is to be removed or deleted on sight. I'd recommend asking on the talk page before inserting links like that, especially with titles above them like "Download Your Free Trial Of Microsoft Office 2007" - language which seems quite promotional in nature. We are sensitive to advertising, because it violates our neutral point of view. Nihiltres^(t.l) 22:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblock

You Autoblocked me today, I am quite annoyed and kindly request some kind of explanation for your actions, if it was a mistake, please let me know for future reference, cheers. Meateater 12:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that a block I made autoblocked you. I didn't mean to, but my blocking a more problematic user, probably either Zzuuzzisgay (attack username) or Mascheranothegeneral (vandalism-only account), must have hit you. I'm afraid this was an inconvenience for you I could not forsee - but you have my sincere apologies for the annoyance. Nihiltres^(t.l) 18:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC) (cross-posted)[reply]

Thank you for that explanation, and I am very sorry if my last message sounded rude. Meateater 19:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 18:24, 19 September 2007 edit Nihiltres (talk \| contribs) Edit filter managers, Administrators 83,811 edits →‎Autoblock: reply: sorry, had no idea :S ← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:49, 19 September 2007 edit undo Meateater (talk \| contribs) 453 edits →‎Autoblock Next edit →
Line 52:		Line 52:

	:I'm sorry that a block I made autoblocked you. I didn't mean to, but my blocking a more problematic user, probably either <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Log/block\|page=User:Zzuuzzisgay}} Zzuuzzisgay] (attack username) or [{{fullurl:Special:Log/block\|page=User:Mascheranothegeneral}} Mascheranothegeneral] (vandalism-only account), must have hit you. I'm afraid this was an inconvenience for you I could not forsee - but you have my sincere apologies for the annoyance. [[User:Nihiltres\|<font color="#275CA9">Nihiltres</font>]]<sup>'''('''<span class="plainlinks">[[User talk:Nihiltres\|<font color="#000">t</font>]].[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?user=Nihiltres <font color="#000">l</font>]</span>''')'''</sup> 18:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC) (cross-posted)		:I'm sorry that a block I made autoblocked you. I didn't mean to, but my blocking a more problematic user, probably either <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Log/block\|page=User:Zzuuzzisgay}} Zzuuzzisgay] (attack username) or [{{fullurl:Special:Log/block\|page=User:Mascheranothegeneral}} Mascheranothegeneral] (vandalism-only account), must have hit you. I'm afraid this was an inconvenience for you I could not forsee - but you have my sincere apologies for the annoyance. [[User:Nihiltres\|<font color="#275CA9">Nihiltres</font>]]<sup>'''('''<span class="plainlinks">[[User talk:Nihiltres\|<font color="#000">t</font>]].[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?user=Nihiltres <font color="#000">l</font>]</span>''')'''</sup> 18:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC) (cross-posted)
			::Thank you for that explanation, and I am very sorry if my last message sounded rude. [[User:Meateater\|Meateater]] 19:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)