Hello Elysdir, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Vsmith 18:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- 1 Curiosity
- 2 Shiva
- 3 Suggestions for improvements on articles
- 4 Dermatillomania
- 5 Disambiguation link notification for March 4
- 6 Parent categories
- 7 Categories that exist can be used
- 8 Cherry Adair
- 9 LonCon3
- 10 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 11 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
- 12 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
- 13 Turing Test
Hi - there was no problem. I just noted on your edit to Gold rush that no one had welcomed you, so thought I'd do my bit and say welcome. Don't know why the welcoming committee had overlooked you. When I see edits on my watch list by users with no talk page, I just become a committee of one. :-) Vsmith 19:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Elysdir, thanks for your comments. I made changes to the Shiva article. Rudra is another name of Shiva. In Shaivism, Shiva is the supreme God. In Smarta or Advaita traditions which is liberal and more ecumenical, God has three aspects, Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu. (i.e., Trimurti. In Vaishnavism, Vishnu is the supreme and Shiva is subordinate. A lot of people made edits without context. I edited some of the entries. Hope this clarifies.
Raj2004 23:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Suggestions for improvements on articles
1) A subject's own website is not generally a reliable source, if only because it is unlike to maintain a neutral point of view. If someone has been shortlisted for an award, for example, we should source to that award's own website, if possible. 1a) The ISFDb, like the IMDDb, is not the most solid of sources either. 2) An article should always wikilink terms like University of Michigan and fantasy. 3) Excessive external links are not good, per our guidelines on external links. 4) We want to see articles on the author in general, not just reviews of her/his works, especially if the reviews are from obscure venues. 5) Are you sure you got my e-mail address right? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
With respect, the image is hardly from irrelevant. I posted a picture of my own hand--which a dermatologist and psychiatrist attributed to what they felt was an obsessive-compulsive skin-picking disorder. I am curious as to what your rationale for the image for being "irrelevant" is. // 3R1C (talk) 02:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'm more susceptible to noticing it because it is on my own hand, but I am also colorblind and I do not have issues with it--at least in real life. If you are disputing the technical aspects of the actual photography, fine. If you are arguing the caption, fine. Neither one of those is reason to remove the image without some discussion. I'll fix the caption, if that's a fair compromise to you. // 3R1C (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally, as an addendum to the color-blindness issue, I will try to take a compare-contrast image of my hands to further illustrate the difference. Hopefully that will be more of an aid to those of us that do have problems with contrasts and similar hues. // 3R1C (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Clarion West Writers Workshop instructors, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gavin Grant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thanks for your recent contributions. A word about categories This page explains that "each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C". That is to say, if Sylvia Plath is put in the cat of 'American women poets', she should not also go in 'poets', 'American poets', or 'American writers', which are parent categories. The idea is that if you are looking via category, you go to the parent category first, say, 'Poets', then you see there 'poets by Nationality'. You can then see 'American poets' and finally 'American women poets'. That is why all the American female novelists were in the 'American female novelist' cat but not also listed under 'American novelists', which would be a duplication. It might seem not to matter, but some editors spend a vast amounts of time trying to sort all this out (not me, I might add). Getting it right saves time for all concerned. I hope that makes sense. Best wishes Span (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Categories that exist can be used
There is no justification for removing a category that exists. If people do not like the category they are free to discuss such at the nominations for deletion. However they are not free to unilaterally remove categories that apply. That is out of process deletion of categories and is higly discoraged, and has a tendency to disrupted deletion discussions. Categories are not lists, we have List of novelists from the United States which has always had female writers. The removal of people in a category under discussion that clearly fit its definition was unjustified and an out of process edit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
your adding of Cherry Adair to Category:American novelists totally went against clear precedents. Category:American romantic fiction writers is a sub-cat of Category:American novelists, by genre subcats clearly diffuse, the main category suggest we should be diffusing, we should not be putting articles in such clearly diffusing sub-cats in the main category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, At LonCon3, on Saturday there is a session on Wikipedia at 10:00am in Capital Suite 7+12. Afterward we are having an informal meet up of people who edit Wikipedia. Hope to see you at either or both. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
With regard to the Turing test page you raised the issue of Elbot taking on the character of a robot. An example from one of the 2008 Turing test conversations is given 0n Page 83 of Artificial Intelligence: The Basics by Kevin Warwick, 2011. In this particular conversation Elbot was adjudged by the interrogator to be an adult male.
Interrogator: Okay, fair enough. I'll stop with the slang. How are you?
Elbot: Just a moment! I'll start my self-diagnosis algorithm and let you know the results.
Interrogator: Very funny, that's exactly what you'd say if you were a computer, right?