User talk:Jahowk

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

Third world[edit]

(moved your comment to my user page, not relevant at RSS)

I don't support you in exploiting the poverty of the thirdworld, SqueakBox. (For others, see at its home page). Jahowk 16:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Lol, well I'm not. How is investing in the third world supporting its poverty? SqueakBox 16:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

And how are you helping the Third World? By not investing in it? By spending all your money in the first world? Because if people dont invest in the Third World it just gets poorer and poorer. Have you ever been to the third world? Seriously, dont make off topic attacks against other users when things arent going your way, SqueakBox 16:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem (the RSS topic) is that you don't provide any reason for your vote. You should. About your personal home page, I wonder what you want exactly? Strange. Jahowk 16:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll respond to your first question at RSS. I want to build up a large offshoring business taking hundreds or thousands of jobs from the media world away from the rich first world UK, US, etc and bring them to the poorer Latin American country I am in. So far from exploiting I want to bring more money here and take it away from the UK, and if enough people do this wages will equalise and the first/third world distinctions will disappear. Still got a long way to go to get that far, SqueakBox 16:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is better to forget your home page for now and concentrate to the RSS page. But I'll answer to the RSS discussion page. Jahowk 10:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome![edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia from SqueakBox! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome, SqueakBox 17:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Excessive use of tutorials in the CSS page[edit]

Jahowk, since you mentioned that the CSS page had many more tutorials than the RSS page, I invite you (since you seem to know something about CSS) to actually read some of the CSS tutorials listed, and then let me know which you think are the best. I believe that any tutorials which are kept at CSS should be cited in the text, per WP:EL, so it is advisable to choose the best one or two for that purpose. Then someone should update the text to mention whichever tutorials remain. EdJohnston 17:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Since you got me looking at the XML page, the 'See also' section of XML looks like a complete mess. It is so large and shaggy, I don't know how a person would ever find anything there. It seems to me that, either that section should be drastically pruned, or some new text material could be written that would lead people to the related articles they need. EdJohnston 21:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
You are surely right. The external link section of XML and other articles need to be shortened. But one the other hand, I hope you will convince that the number of tutorials available here or elsewhere on the Web, proves we need for tutorials. Probably you don't need yourself for a tutorial, but for my own, I was understanding absolutely nothing to RSS until I have found a good tutorial on the subject.
And since and we have not taken advices from other contributors, I hope you will not be opposed to I restore the best external links that have been deleted by Squeakbox. The discussion we have had since this date seems to turn in that sense even if I agree that we have to be vigilant on what will be linked here. The spam we must delete, should not lead us to remove also good links. Jahowk 11:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
And thanks for the deletion of the spam in the body of the article. Jahowk 12:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm still opposed to putting back the external links deleted by SqueakBox. I think you need to get a consensus on the article Talk page first. So far, those who have expressed a view are 2:1 against it. EdJohnston 16:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Unless it is a formal vote, we have to consider the reasons and the advices. Since the start of the discussion, it has be proven that tutorial in this case is useful. This depends upon the kind of article (as you have said also), and an article about Jennifer Lopez for example, requires a different kind of external links rather tutorials ;) Links to galleries perhaps!
These links are here for a while, and has you have noticed, there is a pressure about spam, thus they are necessarely valid. I have just looked at the history of the article and noticed that a spam has been immediately deleted. Even if I can agree to not create a dedicated tutorial section, if this is the problem, I believe that the external link section should not be more shortened. Jahowk 12:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
About the link to a comparison of RSS and Atom, I am not sure, not because it is not a good article, actually this is a serious work, but it is already linked on the atom page. I am not opposed to its inclusion. Jahowk 13:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)