User talk:Tikiwont/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

The Chain Barnstar of Recognition

		The Chain Barnstar of Recognition
		For making a difference! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 3-5 others with 500+ edits but no barnstar. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Hpfan9374 01:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The Chain Barnstar of Merit

		The Chain Barnstar of Merit
		For your hard work! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 4 others with 1500+ edits but no barnstar or has few barnstars. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Hpfan9374 01:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The Chain Barnstar of Diligence

		The Chain Barnstar of Diligence
		For shaping Wikipedia! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 3 others with 2500+ edits but no barnstar or has few barnstars. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Hpfan9374 01:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedian's Chain Barnstar of Honour

		The Wikipedian's Chain Barnstar of Honour
		For building Wikipedia! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 2 others with 5000+ edits but no barnstar or has few barnstars. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Hpfan9374 01:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Truth

It's all true!!!!! Don't take this so seriously, geez. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vonkers (talk • contribs)

Oscar

Wow, thanks for the tip about Oscar (cat), how could I not vote on such an afd. Best regards, --Oscarthecat 17:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 July 30: Monstrous → Cloverfield

You might want to add Delete (in bold) to your contribution to that discussion, so that whichever admin doesn't miss your comment. Cheers.

(I'm assuming that's what your intention was. If it was simply a comment, neutral position or similar, it's still a good idea to add whatever's necessary and make it a bullet point in order to make it stand out.) --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 09:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Annoying request of sources

I refer to Palazzo d'Accursio... does encyclopaedia Britannica list sources for such small articles? I think this mania of "references at any cost" is going out of mind. Ciao and good work. --Attilios 11:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Fox Foundation

Why is this article being recommended for deletion? There seems to be so justifiable explanation. Thanks in advance. Finneganw 16:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Please check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fox Foundation already linked on your page.--Tikiwont 15:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome message on User talk:Greenspon2008

Hi, thanks for putting the welcome message on this page; it solves my problem of providing confusing information to the user (I should have thought about the welcome message myself...). Schutz 09:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Slow down

You tagged Reduct as needing sources less than an hour after it was begun. Articles do not emerge fully developed in an instant. Please check the edit history and be more careful in the future. (You can reply here if you feel the need.) --KSmrq^T 21:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I am actually screening new pages with a delay and may try to be even more 'careful'. However, there are many articles being created without sources, and the 'sources' tag is just a reminder to add them, and can be removed also by the author once done. Moreover, the article in question still has no sources after 72 h.--Tikiwont 09:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Not that you would be expected to know, but the creating editor, WillowW (talk · contribs), is responsible for a number of featured articles, and has an excellent track record with references. To quote Piet Hein (see illustration)

T. T. T.

Put up in a place
where it's easy to see
the cryptic admonishment
     T. T. T.

When you feel how depressingly
slowly you climb,
it's well to remember that
     Things Take Time.

My approach to citations, for example, requires a great deal of effort. I want the name of the author(s) as used in the publication, the correct name of the work, the full name of a journal, the ISBN-13 or ISSN, verification of page numbers or other location info, and a freely-available online source if possible. Some of these things I can get if I have a physical copy of the work in front of me, but not all. Copying citations from another source is unreliable, and is frowned upon in serious academia because it propagates mistakes under an air of authority. And then there is the matter of finding the most helpful sources.

You may be interested in the tool Jakob.scholbach (talk · contribs) is creating for the mathematics project; see here. He is trying to help us create a central repository of citations that are certified to be accurate. (Of course, that's no guarantee that a source supports a claim.) But then, we are accustomed to BibTeX, and find the Wikipedia system painfully primitive.

Tagging articles may give one a feeling of accomplishment, but in my experience it accomplishes little. The real accomplishment is adding good citations and references to them. --KSmrq^T 21:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, this has at least led to a nice poem on my talk page! I was just trying to say that the tag seemed to me hardly hasty or harmful and it certainly isn't my intention to hurry or harass established editors. If you're now saying such housekeeping tags are not very helpful and rather half-hearted I may henceforth heed your high-minded advice and hesitate before habitually and haphazardly tagging while not harboring any hard feelings.

Also thanks for sharing your thoughts on sourcing. It is a long time that I used LaTex and I usually tend to stay away from math articles unless I come across them in deletion discussions or proposals. This area is actually where I mostly add sources myself as kind of First aid to 'endangered' articles using Wikicite. Much of that wouldn't be necessary or at least easier if the original authors cited where they got their information from. Tagging a newbies article sometimes helps and in other cases the request for references is the first step in establishing whether something is notable or actually true.--Tikiwont 13:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Piet Hein's "grooks" are addictive. :-)

Mathematics differs somewhat from mainstream Wikipedia, and I can only speculate why. Many of our articles are on expert topics, so only an editor with substantial mathematics training is likely to create them. We get very few disputes, especially as to correctness, and these are usually amicable and quickly resolved. Our big battles are about how to make an article more accessible without gutting or lying — nice battles to have! I have no respect for the pretense that "more references" = "more reliability", but every article should cite at least one place for readers to dig further. My supposition is that as we get to the point where most of our existing articles include a References section, most of our editors will follow that pattern with new articles.

How to get there? On the "carrot" side, our project page links to a page of reference resources; and we helped create the Wikipedia:scientific citation guidelines. On the "stick" side, tagging editors may be more helpful than tagging articles. Now that we're getting dates added to tags, we can see that article tags sometimes go for nearly a year with no response! Anyone who has submitted a paper for publication knows that it has no chance with no citations; that seems too harsh for Wikipedia.

I've just had an inspiration; I'll run it past some folks to see if it might work. Maybe we can do much better than tags. --KSmrq^T 23:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Catalyst mag

Hey Tikiwont! I added some more stuff to the Catalyst (magazine) article and removed your notability warning, since I think I addressed your reason. (I'm new here! Don't shoot me!) I think that if the State Library of Victoria keeps copies, that speaks to its notability. alexis+kate=? 12:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, according to WP:Notability, it counts who is writing about and not who is archiving a newspaper, but since it is quite old for a student one, I assume somebody may have done so. Just keep in mind that not-notable student magazine are occasionally thrown out at WP:Articles for deletion, so in your place I'd be selective in creating such articles and source the others as well.--Tikiwont 13:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

prod tag- cosmic music

Got your message -

There used to be an article there, but someone moved it and redirected the title to the wrong page.

Anyway, no problem. --Parsifal _Hello 19:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

gallery pages i contributed

Hey I think the wikipedia criteria for what is or is not notable are a bit strict. Shouldn't any art gallery which is or has existed be noted? And if so why not?

BTW I do not work for the galleries I posted pages for, and they were galleries which are mentioned on other sites in wikipedia.

--artabase —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artabase (talk • contribs) 10:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info tiki, I'll read up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artabase (talk • contribs) 11:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could help!

[1] :) Neil ム 20:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Bouldnor -escapes deletion!

Thanks for courteous correction on Bouldnor My interest is the nearby archaeology site -set I hope, to become extremely important internationally -and I wanted a link from it. JRPG 17:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Prod-ding

Thanks for the advice - I guessed the template, and didn't see any space for comments in my preview, so just assumed reasons were not needed and it was supposed ot be obvious... sorry. Anarchia 01:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

List of South Carolina birds

Just a friendly reminder. When you close an afd, be sure to remove the afd tag from the article.  :) Corvus cornix 15:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:DRV notice

Thanks for the notice. I appreciate the time you took to let me know. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Social Workers Association

Dear Sir /Madam,

Greetings from Professional Social Workers Association (PSWA), Chennai, TN state, India www.PSWA.Org.In!

Thank you very much for the feedback on our entry with a heading "social workers Association". We are intending to put different headings by which many of our fellow social workers put a search in wikipedia. There is no marketing aspect in that intention. Kindly guide us, in the process.

Thanking you,

For PSWA, K.S. Ramesh President. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PSWA.Office (talk • contribs) 15:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Quoting policies

Your note was the first I heard of any response to that post, let alone MartinDK's response. I'm not sure what to do about it; I'm surprised that a single comment would drive someone away like that. Had he responded to my post first, even in anger, I would have explained that to him. His abrupt departure leads me to conclude that he didn't care to know my reasons for writing that. I don't know how to talk to someone who doesn't want to listen.

My reasons for that comment was that I was serious about what I wrote, to a degree. I believe one should not just quote policy to make a point on Wikipedia -- one should explain a position, then butress that explanation by pointing to the relevant policy. Otherwise this leads to profitless wikilawyering & edit wars on policy pages -- as if they were laws that could be enforced -- as well as enforcing escalating blocks, & coping with sock-puppetting & other malicious acts that take up everyone's time & energy. Regardless of what anyone believes how a given policy should read, I have found that none can be completely enforced to the letter all of the time. Thus I believe that we should try to follow the intent of these pages, as well as trying to persuade our fellow Wikipedians to do the same; no need to enforce the 3RR rule if everyone stops at two. Or to quote an ancient philosopher, the better policy Rem tene, uerbis sequentur -- "Hold onto the idea, and the words will follow." -- llywrch 17:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I replied to you on my Talk page. (Since this is not how I normally respond to people, I thought this note was appropriate.) -- llywrch 20:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't feel embarassed about your comment on my Talk page. You got me thinking about something -- which is rarely a bad thing. -- llywrch 16:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

RE:Closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion or for a page that you have edited heavily

As someone that occasionally does NA closures as well, I would advise you that per Non-administrators closing discussions "closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion or for a page that you have edited heavily presents a conflict of interest and should be avoided." if something actually qualifies per WP:SNOW, someone else will certainly come along and close it accordingly. Moreover, for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolster Day you still need to add an {{oldafdfull}} tag to the talk page. --Tikiwont 13:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, It's my fist invocation of the snow clause, and my first non-admin closure... I was being bold, perhaps a bit too bold, but so be it. Regarding the "edited heavily", I did see that, but inferred that this meant editing prior to the article Afd, to stop the original creator of the article from using it. Fosnez 13:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not about being bold, but avoiding conflicts of interest by anyone, non only the original creator. This closing rule applies actually also to administrators, just that in case of a Non-admin it can be overturned by any administrator. Since you have referenced the article above and now also Gumtree (which is of course a good thing) and argued for closure on the basis of those refs, you shouldn't close it yourself, no matter how clear it seems to you and also not in the case of a withdrawn nom. Doing so repeatedly, might eventually bee seen rather disruptive than helpful. In any case happy editing!--Tikiwont 13:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification, I think I understand now Fosnez 13:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Just checking,

I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GURPS Illuminati University (2nd nomination), I was right to do this one wasn't I? Fosnez 14:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

As You know in this place there are many opinions and any admin disagreeing with me could override you: It seems that the nominator was indeed the only one seeing a deletion case. Some might say waiting a little longer never harms to not stifle discussion. On the technical side you should add the oldafd template with parameters:

{{oldafdfull|date= dateOfNomination |result= '''result''' |page= articleName }}

The date is useful and the page name as well if the article gets moved. Hope that helps --Tikiwont 14:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)