User talk:Laudak: Difference between revisions
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bandwidth.com |
No edit summary |
||
Line 185: | Line 185: | ||
I added some references to [[Bandwidth.com]]. |
I added some references to [[Bandwidth.com]]. |
||
You may wish to revisit [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bandwidth.com]]. -- [[User:Eastmain|Eastmain]] ([[User talk:Eastmain|talk]]) 18:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC) |
You may wish to revisit [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bandwidth.com]]. -- [[User:Eastmain|Eastmain]] ([[User talk:Eastmain|talk]]) 18:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Pinchas Hirschsprung == |
|||
I have heard this numerous times from students that tested him. A student of his told me that he tested Rabbi Hirschsprung and he correctly said each word for 60 folios from the starting point and was so specific that he said "the daled of deileh, in Tosfos". However please give me some time to find it recorded somewhere citeable. |
Revision as of 20:41, 28 July 2008
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Golden gun, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.bondunlimited.com/alphabetical/g/golden-gun-the.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 01:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Dear CorenSearchBot driver, the website in question says:
- "Source: © Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses collated material from various entries taking off from the Wikipedia article James Bond."
- Please update your bot to check for mirrors and acknowledgements. Therefore I removed the warning placed by bot in the article. User:Laudak
Your recent edits
Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 03:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like wikipedia bots hate me. The one above thinks I am a plagiarizer... And this one plainly hates my signature -User:Laudak
Did you know...
--Allen3 talk 22:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I listed it for discussion here, which is the correct place. Feel free to contribute to the discussion. Sorry about the bureaucracy, it gets on my nerves too. the wub "?!" 18:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Neotectonics
I nominated your article, Neotectonics, for DYK for September 25. If you disagree with this nomination or do not like my hook, please feel free to change it however you want. Regards, --Mattisse 01:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
DYK
--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Avalanche control, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Did you know
--Allen3 talk 15:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
DYK - Facilitating payment
Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 12:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Water stop
Shit happens. Do you want me to slap a tag? `'Míkka 18:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
DYK
Great work on this article Laudak. This was a fascinating subject that I'd never heard of before! It's actually a little scary that computers are making up better jokes than I can. --JayHenry (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify:
- This page is not a listing of specific Wikipedians. It's a page of euphemisms about or referring to Wikipedians (as well as referring to Wikis and Wikipedia). As such, it doesn't belong in Category:Wikipedians.
- Category:Wikipedia Wikipediology - if you look over the category, you should see rather quickly why it's not appropriate here either.
- Category:Wikipedia as a media topic - Do you have a link showing that this list has been an article in the media? It looks simply like original research.
- Category:Wikipedia culture - You could possibly make an argument about this being added to rhis category of general essays, I suppose. But in looking over the page, it's clearly just a copy of a bunch of words taken from the urban dictionary. This isn't so much "culture", as a "List of X" page.
I previously removed the culture cat and left the media cat, I see now that that was incorrect.
I'm removing the first 3, and leaving the culture cat (for now). Be aware though that the page itself may be nominated for deletion if it doesn't develop into more than just a list of semi-associated words. - jc37 08:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- It is a list of quite well associated words. Laudak (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Egg Dance
Nice work on expanding the Egg Dance article. It looks like you must have spent quite some time in the library looking up all that stuff. Richerman (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Today the following text was posted on Mikkai's page, who posted it on mine. I would say it ended up as a three way international collaboration - I started the ball (or the egg!) rolling, Mikkai worked hard to bring it down the field and you helped to put it in the goal; Happy Easter! Richerman (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Happy Easter my friend. Thanks for the nice thought of adding these festive articles! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 16:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Very much appreciate your understanding of the issues involved, and taking the appropriate action! Cheers. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Can you check if I did everythong properly regarding my move requests I'm showing you below? Also I welcome & value your independeny opinion on the matter at hand:
*Jewish Peril → The Jewish Peril - The latter is the exact, correct, title of the book/pamphlet (1920). --Ludvikus (talk) 12:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC) *Final Solution → The Final Solution - The latter is the common usage - except[ion] to WP rules? --Ludvikus (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanx. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposed name-change space
Hi. Thanks again for your assistance previously. Also, I noticed your copyediting work - good job!!! I wander if you could advise where to go to propose a name change. I seem to have lost the address. Thankx. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've made a posting like so (Please advise if in correct & proper form. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)):
[edit] 8 May 2008 Historical Revisionism (negationism) → Historical Revisionism -- It's the common usage. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Brenda Biesterfeld
I have nominated Brenda Biesterfeld, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenda Biesterfeld. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? RGTraynor 18:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of IRD asset, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.leismaninsurance.com/2004%20April%20IRD%20article.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
WikiCookie
Just stopping by with wikicookies for those editors who started new articles today. --Rosiestep (talk) 07:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Good luck!
You'll needed it. I've noticed your attempt to edit Historical Revisionism - very difficult place. And I really believe - having seen your work elsewhere - that things can only get better with your presence. Sincerely, my best wishes to you. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- FYI. There are only 3 active editors there. No one else seems to be willing to touch the sight - oops- gotta go. The water for my coffee's boiling! But I'll be back. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- What I want to tell you is that I find there's no correlation whatsoever between that first footnote and the (1st) paragraph to which it refers. I suggest you read carefully the text they quoting as their reference. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- But that's a minor point. You realize that mainstream scholarship holds "Historical Revisionism" to be so much hogwash. And that it's substantially known for its holocaust denial. But you wouldn't know that would you by reading this Wikipedia article? A word to the wise is sufficient. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
6/11 DYK
--Bedford Pray 11:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Humor: International Journal of Humor Research
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Thingg⊕⊗ 18:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Moved to Talk:Crazy Legs (album). Laudak (talk) 23:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Crazy Legs
Moved to Talk:Richard "Crazy Legs" Colón, since it is beyond personal chat. Laudak (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
shass
can you please explain this edit. It seems to that Shass Pollak does not directly relate to mishnah and should not be in the see also. Jon513 (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- As laudable as a goal as having the article improved it is not a valid reason for it to be placed in the see also. Shas can refer to either mishnah or talmud depending on the usages. By linking to shass pollak in a article about the mishnah is misleading. Jon513 (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- I gave a valid reason as well. Also, Misleading in what way? Laudak (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Citations missing
Concerning your addition of the "citations missing" tag to several articles: The use of footnotes is not required by Wikipedia's citation policy. Technically, a list of sources at the bottom of an article is sufficient. It may not be the nicest way to do things, but that is what the community has upheld so far. If you want to use that template you should specify (on the article talk pages) which individual points you think should have footnotes. Otherwise, the template itself is of no use. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Kafziel Complaint Department 22:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- I beg to disagree. Long articles actively edited by numerous anonymous editors without inline reference cause a natural suspicion in correctness. I don't think that peppering numerous statements with {{cn}} tags will look better. The articles in question are based mostly on opinions and conclusions of certain scholars on the subject, not just a description of, say, sun or copper which may be found in many places. These opinions/generalizations/conslusions must be properly attributed. YOu say "it is of no use". I beg to disagree: it brings attention to undercited article. As for the citation policy, I suggest you to see the guidelines for "good articles" and "featured articles". I don't think most of us be happy not having the articles in question not judged as "good" simply because our policies naturally very tolerant and favor content versus formality. But good articles must conform both content and formalism. Laudak (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's not a matter of disagreement. Wikipedia policy does not require footnotes. Everything must be verifiable, but it is not required to be neatly attributed. Suspicion or not, that's just the way it is. Guidelines are guidelines, but can not be forced on every article. This has already been addressed on the template's talk page.
- I'm certainly not saying you shouldn't use the tag, and I'm not saying you should use {{cite}} tags instead. I'm just saying you should make a note on each talk page to list which specific passages you'd like to see footnotes for. If you do it that way, the tag is just as useful as {{cite}} but (as you said) looks much nicer for the average reader. If you don't do that, how will anyone know when enough footnotes have been added to remove the tag? Kafziel Complaint Department 22:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- I understand your position. Please look into my contributions, and you will notice that I am not a bot driver who accumulates his edit count by liberally tagging whatever can be tagged. I came to these articles via chain of wikilinks and this series struck me as severely undercited. As to "when enough footnotes", this issue, as numerous other ones are judged by wikipedians' common sense. You cannot write a policy for each and every keyboard click. Finally, please consider that for many readers the information who said something is just as important as what was said, and it is not simply the matter of scholar courtesy. Especially, like I said, in the areas such as politics, sociology, etc. I understand that big fat tag on top does not look pretty, but long articles without a single footnote look unporfessional. Laudak (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- I certainly didn't mean to give you the impression that I thought your edits were excessive; those articles' references could certainly use some improvement. The thing is, the only power that tag has is in its ugliness; since it isn't backed by policy, it doesn't have any clout unless specifics are mentioned. For example: Since we require citations to be provided on demand, and we also require (except for BLP) some notice before deleting large sections of articles, a {{cite}} tag that goes ignored for too long means the offending text can be deleted. But since there's no policy requiring footnotes, the {{citations missing}} tag can be ignored indefinitely and nothing can be done. Without a note of explanation on the talk page, it's just a tag for the sake of being a tag. Like {{cleanup}}, it doesn't say anything of value.
- Obviously I can't make you do anything you don't want to do. But, considering how sparingly you've used it, it wouldn't be hard to specify a handful of passages in some talk page comments. Anyway, don't worry about it. I didn't mean to imply you were abusing the tags or anything like that. I'll try to take a look at the articles when I get the time. Kafziel Complaint Department 02:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I understand your position. Please look into my contributions, and you will notice that I am not a bot driver who accumulates his edit count by liberally tagging whatever can be tagged. I came to these articles via chain of wikilinks and this series struck me as severely undercited. As to "when enough footnotes", this issue, as numerous other ones are judged by wikipedians' common sense. You cannot write a policy for each and every keyboard click. Finally, please consider that for many readers the information who said something is just as important as what was said, and it is not simply the matter of scholar courtesy. Especially, like I said, in the areas such as politics, sociology, etc. I understand that big fat tag on top does not look pretty, but long articles without a single footnote look unporfessional. Laudak (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bandwidth.com
I added some references to Bandwidth.com. You may wish to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bandwidth.com. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Pinchas Hirschsprung
I have heard this numerous times from students that tested him. A student of his told me that he tested Rabbi Hirschsprung and he correctly said each word for 60 folios from the starting point and was so specific that he said "the daled of deileh, in Tosfos". However please give me some time to find it recorded somewhere citeable.