User talk:Caceo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

User talk:Caceo


Hello Caceo, and Welcome to Wikipedia!Bouncywikilogo.gif

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Caceo, good luck, and have fun. --roleplayer 23:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Multilanguage encyclopedia[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Multilanguage encyclopedia, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Hairhorn (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Multilanguage encyclopedia[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Multilanguage encyclopedia. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multilanguage encyclopedia. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

small test signature and colors[edit]

One color

other color other color other color

Re: your comments at WT:Disambiguation[edit]

I think the thread went cold because you said "Goodby". I don't mean to appear rude, but I think you might have misunderstood the purpose of disambiguation in the English Wikipedia. It could well be different in the Italian Wikipedia, and that would be perfectly OK; there's nothing to say it should be the same. On the English Wikipedia, the purpose of disambiguation is to give each article a unique and useful title, that makes each article as easy to find as possible. That's it. There's a secondary, less important, activity of making disambiguation pages, which sometimes help users to find the page they're looking for, but that is not the purpose of disambiguation. Every editor who posted in that thread, other than you, has tried to make that clear. I'm sorry if the words we've used have not been easy for you to understand; English can be subtle and beautiful and very difficult! I hope some of this helps; please feel free to point out the parts that are not clear and I'll try to explain. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree your explication of the porpuse, but the unresolved problem is to give a wikt:concrete_term to a concrete action not named and supposed by the porpuse (wikt:abstract_term), and making in such way a syntactically clear definition. ----« Caceo » ¿.msg.? 15:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand. The purpose is clear, no? If it's clear, then where's the problem? I don't think your distinction between concrete and abstract matters, I guess - perhaps it doesn't translate from Italian to English well. We are dealing with an electronic representation of the abstract concept of knowledge, after all! --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Now this link is functioning: wikt:concrete_term: I woold like you agree that "disambiguation" and "distinction" are abstract terms, thus abstract ends. What is the human action (concrete term in physical reality) to persuive disambiguation ? ----« Caceo » ¿.msg.? 16:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Guessing that your verb "persuive" means "pursue", or "perform", I suppose the "human action" is either choosing page names or renaming pages. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
No please: (choosing page names or renaming pages). This is not my thought. What could be the "human action" made by a wikipedian when it pursue the disambiguation idea (abstract end) ? I wrote here my propose to name it: Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#A_definition_more_clear_to_be_clearly_translatable: (Proposed definition of disambiguation).
  • ... "action of grouping new similar article titles with previous similar titles"...
Certainly this is a material action, distinct by the abstract end of disambiguation. Do you think there is a different action or a better formulazione wording to name the concrete action more precisely  ? ----« Caceo » ¿.msg.? 18:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm quite sure now that you misunderstand, no doubt due to those subtleties of language! This activity that you describe is the one I mentioned above as secondary. It's valuable and worthwhile, but it's not disambiguation. It is "building disambiguation pages" and is already described at WP:DPAGES, WP:DABNAME and WP:MOSDAB. It's secondary because it is needed only if the first, more important part occurs. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
PS I think this might be a bigger problem in the English language than in other languages; English is famous for allowing the use of the same word to represent many different things. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I read your links, thanks; but the question has not changed. Every time an editor is disambiguating, he is making nothing else that a material action: grouping two or more article titles, by mean of a disambiguation template. The material effect of using any of this templates is a group of titles (two or more), seen as adjacent links. The porpuse of disambiguation is normally obtained, but it is not insured because the end is abstract and not material. ----« Caceo » ¿.msg.? 20:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
No, that is not disambiguating.
Consider the word "Rome". Wikipedia can only have one page with that name, and it is about the Italian city known in English as Rome. However, there is also a town called Rome in the US state of Indiana. The word Rome is therefore wikt:ambiguous in English. Disambiguation means we put the town in Indiana at Rome, Indiana.
There are other uses of the word in English too, and so we have a disambiguation page to help readers find the meaning they want. But your description of disambiguation above is incorrect; you describe building a disambiguation page, which is related but different. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Please look in your two examples at similar and grouped titles:
  1. template {{disambig}} with many similar titles in a disambiguation page
  2. template {{dablink|For... see [[Ancient Rome]]. <br/> For ...uses, see [[Rome (disambiguation)]].}}
  • in your example 2 also the material action is grouping two or more similar article titles.
  • There is a disambiguation template that do not group two or more similar titles ? If not my argument is strong. ----« Caceo » ¿.msg.? 23:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S Strictly speaking: homophone and homographic words and every polysemy shall be disambiguated by dictionaries. While in every encyclopedia, analogously in every newspaper, entries are "article titles", thus Wikipedia shall disambiguate "similar article titles", not words. ----« Caceo » ¿.msg.? 23:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. All the fuss with disambiguation pages and templates comes after the fact of choosing the distinct, distinguished, unambiguous titles. Using a disambiguation template is secondary to, and different from, the initial act of disambiguation. You seem to want it to be something else, but it's not.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:User:AndrewHowse|User:AndrewHowse]] ([[User talk:User:AndrewHowse|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/User:AndrewHowse|contribs]])

It's a different point the relations among disambiguation, naming and renaming. My proposal is restricted to the definition of "disambiguation". ----« Caceo » ¿.msg.? 22:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
And I've been trying to explain to you that disambiguation doesn't mean what you seem to think it means, because the definitions you've proposed aren't correct. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009[edit]

Please stop your use of {{unresolved}} on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. It is not for use at times where a single editor (in this case, you) disagrees with a guidelines. Your edits on the talk page are also becoming uncivil and disruptive. You do not have to agree with consensus, but you need to abide by it, and if you don't agree you need to do so civilly. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)