Jump to content

User talk:Yamara

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.209.11.186 (talk) at 14:27, 24 February 2008 (→‎Vicki Iseman: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

You're invited!

...to the next New York City Meetup!

New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday January 13th, Columbia University area
Last: 11/3/2007
This box: view • talk • edit

In the morning, there are exciting plans for a behind-the-scenes guided tour of the American Museum of Natural History.

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues (see the last meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cory_Everson_Get_Hard.jpg

I have tagged Image:Cory_Everson_Get_Hard.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. MECU≈talk 14:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cory_Eversons_Gotta_Sweat.jpg

I have tagged Image:Cory_Eversons_Gotta_Sweat.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. MECU≈talk 14:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you require a barnstar...

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
...for that brilliant template for Time Topics you made, it is something I have always wanted. Thanks! ^ .^ --124.171.21.177 (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, 124.171.21.177! wherever you are... -- Yamara 17:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template Time Measurement and Standards Topics

In many time related articles, you are deleting most references in the "see also" sections in a rapid tempo, while adding a template. In my opinion this is rather reader unfriendly. I intend to restore many of the deleted referencces. Could you please stop doing this till other editors have an opportunity to react? −Woodstone (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, it is already done, at least for that template.
(Recopied from my comment at User talk:Woodstone:)
Sorry if I stepped on any toes, but I was only removing "See Also" listings from where they duplicate links on the template. Many articles have excessively long See Also lists, that append without adequate explanation, and templates seek to address that.
Specifically regarding 12-hour clock and 24-hour clock articles, references to each are in the body of either article, making the See Alsos redundant, even without the Time Measurement Template. Also, in the 12-hour clock article, Comparison of the 12-hour and 24-hour clocks is linked twice in the article above, in appropriate places, and should probably not be in the See Also list a third time.
In any case, no page has been left unlinked where it was linked before. I'm very careful about that. Cheers. -- Yamara 16:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem with redirects to templates?

Sorry, I don't understand your point. What's the problem with redirects to templates? For example, right now, Daylight saving time is using a redirect, since its source contains the text {{Time measurement and standards}}, but I don't see any problem with how the article looks on my screen. Also, I checked some of the other pages that used the overcapitalized name (right after I made it a redirect to the lowercased name), and they worked just fine too. Wikipedia standards are to not capitalize later words in a title, so I'd rather do it the "right" way if it works. Eubulides (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no technical problem with redirects to templates. I guess that you are more comfortable with redoing all the pages that use the templates, so I did that. By the way, other templates have the same naming problem, e.g., "Chronology Topics" should be "Chronology topics". But I'll leave that for you. One more thing, please don't put more than one blank line before and after the template call, as the extra blank lines cause misformatting. Eubulides (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of timekeeping devices

I've moved the page to reflect the comments at peer review. Would you mind helping out with making it more informative on the actual timekeeping? Even just providing some sources would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! J-ſtanContribsUser page 22:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese nengō

The Chronology template is an alluring addition to Wikipedia. In my view, there is no doubt that this template enhances the quality and value of the project. However, there is a small problem with the decision to construe Japanese era names as a subset of Regnal names -- not that it's entirely wrong, but rather, it just happens that this subject turns out to be quite a bit more complicated.

At this point, I'm just wanting to give you a quick head's up just in case your edit engenders any prickly complaints or criticisms. Not to worry .... I hope to have more time to re-visit this next week. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm continuing to try to think through the problem your work creates, in my view. It's not enough to criticize what you have done. It's a relatively easy matter to contrive an argument explaining why something you've done is a little bit off-base, but it's much more difficult to suggest something better. I'm still pondering; but tentatively, maybe you'll consider a modest, yet meaningful change:
  • (1) Please consider removing Japanese as a sub-set of Regnal year; and instead, the link could be re-positioned elsewhere. In support of this modification, please revisit Japanese era name. The newly devised Greorian calendar year/nengō conversion table might help you understand at a glance why, despite the impression a reasonable person could otherwise develop on the basis of post-Meiji period examples, it becomes unhelpful to conflate nengō and regnal years across the span of Japanese history since the 8th century. Throughout the reigns of serial emperors, it is indisputable that a new era was often proclaimed in conjunction with the accession of a new sovereign; but there were also many instances in which new eras were proclaimed for other reasons entirely.
  • (2) As an constructive alternative, why not profit from the plausible hint which flows from what you can discover for yourself as you browse the English-language web pages of Japan's National Diet Library -- here. Until the arrival of Europeans, the Japanese used a lunar calendar and nengō simultaneously; and afterwards, they adapted to the juggling of Gregorian calendar conventions a matter of course. In your unique template, why not re-position the link for Japanese era name as a newly contrived sub-set of "Calendars"? My sense is that it's an arguably good idea to locate this Japanese nengō link at the bottom of this section, e.g.,
Does this small suggestion really require a more fully-developed explanation? Without more, perhaps this brief note will be sufficiently persuasive .... What do you think? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are other points of debate on the Regnal year and Era name pages that should probably be addressed before "my" little template is taken to task. I'm not proprietary about the template; this is Wikipedia. :)
However, a solution presents itself; I've added Era name to the template. I leave it to you to fight for its exclusion from Regnal year! -- Yamara 02:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than disagreeing with you, it's easier to argue that yours was the better editing choice. As revealed in the newly-created conversion table for Japanese era names, in most cases, an era change is attributable to the accession of a new Japanese sovereign.

As I considered how best to respond to the questions raised for me by your Chronology template, I was reminded of an appendix in a relatively recent book:

Regnal periods were declared once or more often during the life of individual emperors, and provided the formal basis for calendar dating .... Some nengō are obscure, and little used outside specialized texts. Some are widely known, and have a personality all their own: for instance, Genroku conveys a significance somewhat akin to the use of siècle de Louis Quatorze in French history. [emphasis added]
-- Cullen, L.M. (2003). A History of Japan, 1582-1941: Internal and External Worlds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-82115-X (cloth) ISBN 0-521-529918-2 (paper)

When I re-visited Cullen's comments, it became clear that my view of nengō had been marginalized, perhaps with good reason in a book dealing with the range of transitions which account for the character of modern Japan. This doesn't resolve the issue in terms of our broader Wikipedia context, but it may be persuasive in the narrowed context of this template.

Changing gears somewhat: Is there a place in the Chronology template for Sexagenary cycle? If so, where? In the "Calendar" section perhaps?

What do you think about incorporating more than one internal link option in the Chronology template:

Of course, I must acknowledge that my persistence here is, in part, a function of my personal interests in pre-Meiji period Japan; but there you have it. In no sense should you feel that I'm "taking you to task" for anything. No, not at all. If anything, my inquiries simply demonstrate the extent to which I have engaged the spirit and substance of your template's effective contribution to making Wikipedia better. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering where that cycle was hiding. I've reconfigured the calendar section of the Chronology template, but emphasized the cycle's Chinese origin, as it will be more familiar to English speakers (i.e. "Chinese New Year" is better known than "Japanese New Year"); currently, the article does the same in its first sentence.
And I did not suspect you of taking me to task. I can sometimes be too tongue-in-cheek. Thank you for your kind praise.
Good luck with the historiography of these ancient methods. It's important to know not only how people counted the days, but when they began to count them in what fashion. Cheers, Yamara 14:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Hello. You may have seen that some Wikipedia articles lack sources to given dates, timelines and chronologies.
If you feel that you could like to help in making all articles more reliable and well sourced in this regard, we would like to encourage you to use, as part of your daily editing and when {{fact}} is not enough for requesting clearly and specifically a citation or source for dates, timeline or chronology, the following inline tag:

{{Timefact}} displays {chronology source needed} for requesting timelines, dates and chronology sources. Click here for more information


At WP Timeline Tracer, we thank you for using these tools and for helping to make Wikipedia articles more accurate and reliable.

Daoken 10:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Yes it is :) . Thank you Daoken 13:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STOP REMOVING MY EDITS

STOP REMOVING MY EDITS ON THE PAGE TITLED "CRITICISMS OF GEORGE W BUSH" WITHOUT LETTING ME KNOW WHY YOU ARE MAKING THEM!

You haven't given anyone a reason. I have been posting stuff up on the talk page. You know that the section is HORRIBLY written. I made it extremely fair when I wrote it. STOP REMOVING MY EDITS WITHOUT GIVING REASON IN THE TALK SECTION.Kgj08 (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia K. Robertson

I see you reverted this edit. However, any editor is entitled to remove a prod tag, and it's certainly not vandalism. Could I ask why you reverted? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I have reverted the template you left on the I.P.'s talk page here. The I.P. did nothing wrong, and there is nothing to warn it about. I confess to being thoroughly baffled by your actions, and I'd appreciate any explanation. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I prodded every article for a non-incumbent candidate in the Alberta election (except for a few - Sean Maw, Avalon Roberts, David Crutcher, Craig Chandler, Arthur Kent, Kent Hehr, George Read, Mike Robinson, Len Skowronski, Ken Allred, Rachel Notley, Naomi Rankin, Link Byfield, and Ed Klop - who seemed to make alternative claims not notability, and one - Christina Gray - that had inexplicably already survived an AfD). I am virtually certain that all of them were created under conflicts of interest; however, whether they were created under conflict-of-interest has no bearing on whether an article should be deleted. In any event, I suspect I'll wind up bringing this to WP:AFD where I suspect it will be deleted. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To add to suspicion of conflict of interest, User:Rairsc just made this edit about Robertson's opponent. I've given a vandalism warning. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olimpia Aldobrandini

Thanks for finding the dates for her. Do you know any books or online sources on her with which to increase the article? Neddyseagoon - talk 12:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Crane barnstar

What an unexpected surprise, thank you! I have taken a break from completely rewriting Crane's bio to finish Emily Dickinson for FAC, but soon I'll get to work in finishing it. It's not even halfway done yet, so hopefully when you check back in a couple months, it'll be even better and perhaps even a Good Article. :) Thanks again, María (habla conmigo) 16:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New mailing list

There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 21:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removal of charmed pics.

i uploaded some charmed pictures of prue halliwell and you removed them. i took those shoot using my computer so they would be considered my work. you said that the copyright thingy i put is wrong or whatever. the picture i uploaded was my work and i dont appreciate you deleting it when all im trying to do is make the page better. Jpagan09 (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how exactly is ANYONE supposed to upload pics and claim it as their own work without it being deleted. in my case, all i did was take a picture of the scene while my dvd was playing. what kind of license what that go under. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpagan09 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you know what i give up. im just trying to make the better article by putting nice pictures. instead of shooting me down and making me look like an idiot, you could try helping me step by step or something so i don't keep breaking the rules. that would be great as opposed to leaving me sarcastic messages and telling me not to hold my breath. that's fine though. i'll add text and stuff, but i won't even try to upload nice pictures that i did MYSELF if you're just gonna be a jerk about it and continuously deleting them. Jpagan09 (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vicki Iseman

Hi Yamara, I removed a See also lonk because it is already linked to in the introduction of that article, so per WP:GTL it really isn't needed. Thank you. --72.209.11.186 (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legit point. I won't revert it again, if it's eliminating a double link. –Yamara ✉ 14:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Yes, the link is mention pretty prominently since this is pretty much why this article exists in the first place.--72.209.11.186 (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yamara&oldid=193700966"