Jump to content

User talk:Hmains: 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
maintenance
Tonymax469 (talk | contribs)
221 edits
Line 224: Line 224:


*Thanks, I did this now.
*Thanks, I did this now.

== Wanna organize your user page? ==

Wanna organize your user page? I can show you how. [[User:Tonymax469|Tonymax469]] ([[User talk:Tonymax469|talk]]) 04:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:01, 15 July 2012

Welcome

Policies and guidelines (list)
Principles
Content policies
Conduct policies
Other policy categories
Directories

   Discussion Conventions

  • Please post new messages at the bottom of the page to prevent confusion.
  • Please sign your comments. Type ~~~~ after your text or use the edit toolbar.
  • Please use section headings to separate conversation topics.

See: Welcome to Wikipedia, FAQ, Wikiquette, Be nice, and Talk page guidelines.

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

Welcome!! --Gurubrahma 19:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

info

Wikipedia:Lists

Categories are a tool for browsing: they function as a table of contents, leading users to the articles on a specific subject. Categories are a means of classifying articles Categories are an index of a subject Categories are a database search: Many categories are in essence the intersection of two or more larger categories. Categories are an index of other categories: There are many categories that function simply as an index of other categories.

Maintenance note

I maintain this page by deleting items after a week or two. Hmains (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monobook

You may wish to make use of a 'Dates' tab in edit mode that will help with unlinking unnecessary date links. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. It also provides a 'Units' tab. If you know what you are doing, you can copy and modify the subfiles as you wish. I just thought you might be interested. Regards. bobblewik 20:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it fails is because you refer to User:Hmains/monobook.js/dates.js and User:Hmains/monobook.js/unitformatter.js and these articles do not exist. You have two options:
Try again. I am happy to walk you through the process. So feel free to ask me again. bobblewik 12:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hold for cat discussion until find example

There are some categories that are used only for categories, and never for articles. Some of these categories have been made into 'hidden' categories, and yet they are never in fact 'hidden' since the hidden feature only applies to articles and not categories. So the hidden category always displays on the category screen as 'hidden'--which is obviously a contradiction. I suggest, that category categories not be classified as hidden. When I have tried to remove the hidden classification in such cases, someone always just adds it back in. Without something said in this categorization guideline I have nothing much justify my removal.

etc

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories

info

Wikipedia:Categorization Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes Template:Americans WP:BLPCAT WP:LISTPEOPLE 2010-12 handled by find/replace table; not by module

public


Reviewer Right Granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. The Helpful One 17:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Autopatroller

Hi Hmains, just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature should have little to no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! — ξxplicit 21:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


etc

talk) talk talk


Linking Dates (centuries, decades, years, months, days, etc)

Delink dates per WP:DATELINK, WP:YEARLINK and MOS:UNLINKYEARS

As always, the content of the linked-to article must provide substantive content to the linked-from article. The MOS decided most dates do not do this. Hmains (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what links here

filter by name:

  • calendar|day|week|month|year|decade|century|millennium|Showa|Shōwa|Meiji|Taisho|Taishō| in |Other events|(number)|(disambiguation)|Aught-|SO 8601|Timeline|acronyms|initialisms

skip:

  • {{Decadebox|{{Year dab|{{Year nav|{{Month header}}|{{Day}}|Category:Days of the year|{{Portal:Current events/Events by month}}|{{Months in the|Eastern Orthodox liturgical days|#REDIRECT|disambig|{{events by month links}}|month category|Months of the|The following events occurred in


(decade)

AWB is appending (decade) to the end of any "1900s" or "2000s" when it's not a link.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has nothing to do with links. Since '2000s' can be interpreted either as the 100 years that started in 2000 or as the 10 years that started in 2000. See 2000s. For this reason, disambiguation is needed and 2000s (decade) provides it. Thanks Hmains (talk) 05:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also it's correcting "the new millennium" to "2000s millennium" when its prose and not wikimarkup. Fix this.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • This also has nothing to do with links. The 'new millennium' is by itself ambiguous; '2000s millennium' clarifies exactly what we are talking about. Thanks Hmains (talk) 05:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no reason to disambiguate prose. Show me in which manual of style it says you disambiguate prose when it refers to the double-zero decades or when someone does not refer to the 3rd millennium CE when saying "new millennium".—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whenever there is a reason to think that readers may be confused, then clarity is needed in the, whether in WP or anywhere else. This is the duty of every writer toward his readers. The statement in the Manual of Style WP:MOS, "Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording.", covers it all. No further detail is needed, but it is further mentioned at Wikipedia:CENTURY. You may disagree with me, but you cannot say I am wrong or that I must change my editing to match what you want. I can say, however, your editing does not match the MOS. Hmains (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This does not discuss whether or not you put "(decade)" in prose rather than a link to the article on 2000s (decade). You should not be making this correction when it is part of the text of the article.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The MOS at this point is not discussing links; it is discussing article text and is completely applicable here. Questions on the MOS should be taken up with the MOS editors. Thanks. Hmains (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing in the manual of style that says "Append instances of ambiguous periods of time in prose with '(decade)' or '(century)'". This is where you are incorrect and you should not be making these edits that two different editors have reverted you on.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


2000s vs 2000s (decade)

In regard to this edit.

With the items you are linking to with AWB, no change to the article was required. In no way, shape or form do they indicate that "(decade)" needs to be added. Please remove it form you routine with AWB or provide a link to the guideline/policy it is based on in the edit summary AWB adds.

- J Greb (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And just removing the links from the summary isn't enough. It's worse actually since it removes most of the justification for your other automated changes. - J Greb (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whenever there is a reason to think that readers may be confused, then clarity is needed in writing, whether in WP or anywhere else. The statement in the Manual of Style WP:MOS, "Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording.", covers it. It is further mentioned at Wikipedia:CENTURY. This is about clarity, not links. Is anything wrong here? I can certainly add Wikipedia:CENTURY to the already long list of things I look for/do in articles, using AWB to find what I want to work on. Hmains (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the above: when making an edit as described ("2000s"→"2000s (decade)"), you also made two bad edits, and two doubtful edits. The bad edits were two cases of altering "700s"→"8th century", when the 700s in question were not a period of time but locomotives of the LSWR 700 class. The doubtful ones were where you altered "40's"→"1940s" and "50's"→"1950s" when it was by no means certain that the twentieth century was that under discussion. Indeed, the text was already marked with {{clarify|date=October 2011|reason=Which century? Specify 1840s or 1940s please}}. If you have a source which definitively states that it was the 20th century, please add that and remove the {{clarify}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the locomotive! As far as the 40s and 50s, I read the text carefully found the traffic it was discussing was 'railway traffic' and since the rail line did not exist in the 1840s and 1850s, it must have applied to the 1940s and 1950s. That's all. Thanks Hmains (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmains, you've now been told twice to remove your disambiguation of prose and not links in regards to appending "(decade)" to the end of phrases such as "2000s". Why do you refuse to do this? It's not necessary when we are talking about article text and not formatting.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are just another editor like me. You have no authority whatsoever to order me to do or not do something and expect me to obey. There was a conversion above which you abandoned. You should read what I wrote. The MOS is clear. If you have questions about the MOS, you need to take it up with those editors. Hmains (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've been told by three different editors that your practice of appending "(decade)" to the end of "2000s" or "1900s" is not correct. The MOS does not state to append this phrase to the end of instances of the number in prose. That is your assumption that you've been told is incorrect. If you persist in making these edits, I will be forced to bring it to a wider audience on the administrators' noticeboards. I see absolutely nothing at WP:DECADE or WP:CENTURY that says you should be doing what you are doing.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you refuse to ask the MOS editors for clarification? Hmains (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, because I'm reading the MOS entry on WP:CENTURY and it does not say to do what you have been doing. When two different editors tell you you are wrong you should assume you should seek clarification on what you are doing. It is not the other way around.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rivers of the Gulf of Mexico

Category:Rivers of the Gulf of Mexico, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger One ping only 05:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bodies of water of the Caribbean

Category:Bodies of water of the Caribbean, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger One ping only 05:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Web page has expired

I follow the directions in the message shown on the screen.

"Click on the Refresh button on the toolbar to reload the page. After refreshing, you might need to navigate to the specific webpage again, or re-enter information."

On my computer I have to remember that "refresh" looks like a circle with an arrow at the top, and it's the fourth of five icons to the right of the URL. I don't even know what the others are. Then a box pops up and I have to click on "retry".— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with »circa the final year of the 19th century«?

Hmains:

Many salutations! I understand that you had good intentions with the editing you did here on 31 @ March 2012; still, I am left scratching my head at why you abbreviated circa and did away with the link that clarifies what I meant by "the final year of the 19th century". That change makes the article less clear than before.

Dairi no Kenkyo (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. The WP Manual of Style says that 'circa' and all its variations are supposed to be written as 'c.' in WP so I did so. The MOS also says that year fields are not supposed to be linked so 1900 was unlinked. That left the phrase: 'the final year of the 19th century'. It would have been more straight forward to have just '1900' instead of this roundabout wording for the reader to puzzle over. Right? If not fixed already, you or I can fix it now. Hmains (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

please accept this beer for your help with TG timeline. I really appreciate this, as you can tell I am new here and my contribution was rather chaotic so far. Thanks again

Aryst Aryst (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Irish Americans for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Irish Americans is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Irish Americans until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Tgeairn (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Czech Americans for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Czech Americans is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Czech Americans until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Tgeairn (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning out the "extra" entries on the list... I didn't see a safe place to roll back to, but I must have just not looked far enough. I still have the concerns raised at AfD, but just getting the list back to the criteria helps dramatically. Thanks again, and happy editing! --Tgeairn (talk) 02:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct high schools

You are currently deleting categories for defunct (public) high schools. On what grounds do you have to delete the Category:Public high schools in California? Each of these with that category were, in fact, public high schools. Wikipedia does not adhere to recentism. Just because they no longer exist, these still qualify for the category. Trackinfo (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are not even necessarily buildings anymore. But they were public high schools during their day. Now is not important. There are thousands of graduates from each of these schools roaming the world, many of them still alive today I must assume, but even if not it is part of their history. In theory you only get to graduate from one high school. This is where they got their high school education at a valid public high school. When someone clicks on the school's article, they can clearly see it went out of service on whatever date or year. Trackinfo (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't think that too many people will notice a loss of these public/private categories for defunct schools in California (or any state) since I only recently created and populated them. The defunct category can be sub-categorized as desired, but not by me: I still have too much work to do on populating these public/private, elementary, middle, high categories for many other states. Thanks though. Hmains (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I note that most (if not all) of the category pages do not have any text describing inclusion criteria. Might I suggest adding text to the Category pages indicating either "current" or "current and former"? Of course, given the number of school related categories involved, this is probably best suited to a semi-automated process. --Tgeairn (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about that yesterday. It is complicated though. At the state level, one would have to write something as awkward as "A school should be categorized by county. In addition, a school not categoried as defunct should be categorized in its appropriate public or private subcategories, as well as any additional categories that are applicable." Hmains (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for creating the List of Czech Americans and List of Irish Americans articles back in 2007. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added List of Irish Americans to the barnstar above! Northamerica1000(talk) 05:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks again. I suspect these dated back to a bad time I was having with one editor who was trying to delete them, one way or another. I think I helped get them back. Hmains (talk) 05:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AutoWikiBroswer

Just a notice: Today we uploaded a new AutoWikiBroswer version which corrects a lot of exceptions and other annoying stuff. I suggest you download it from: http://toolserver.org/~awb/snapshots/ -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, I did this now.

Wanna organize your user page?

Wanna organize your user page? I can show you how. Tonymax469 (talk) 04:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hmains&oldid=502352241"