|
User talk:Tm93/Archive 1 How To Post A Message
Instructions above......are completely wrong and may confuse new users (especially the part about leaving real names and email addresses - something we discourage). Would you care to remove them? Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 11:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC) I willI will remove the message above, How to post a message, once I'm finished talking with ЯEDVEЯS. It should be removed no later than 3:00pm PT, June 13, 2008.Tm93 (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC) It's finishedThanks to ЯEDVEЯS, my instructions above, How to post a message, are accurate. they have been fixed. Tm93 (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC) How to post a message
-- Tm93 (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Speedy deletion of Witness T Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages such as Witness T, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding In response to your questionHello! Thanks for coping maturely with the deletion of your article. It happens, you know? Even good articles that are mostly written in the proper spirit of the site sometimes get deleted over some problem or another. Anyway, unfortunately, Wikipedia is meant to be an 'online encyclopedia'. Religious sermons or proselytization aren't the kinds of things you randomly stick in an encyclopedia, you know? It'd be kinda like finding a copy of "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" in the middle of a book about economics. You're 100% welcome to write articles here, but personal sermons don't really qualify as that. There are other, much better places for putting those sorts of things where they won't be removed. Free web hosting, online blogs/journals, and things like that, might be more what you're looking for. - Vianello (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Glad we could get that cleared up!It's really swell of you to be able to think about the broader implications of things on here. Heaven knows, we all come across stuff on Wikipedia now and then where we'd just love to give the public a piece of our own opinions. But that just doesn't get anywhere or help anyone. With that kind of nice, objective outlook, I think you'll have a lot to add to this place. If you have questions about anything else or need help, drop me a line any time. I'd certainly like to see more editors like yourself getting into the thick of it, so to speak! - Vianello (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Speedy deletionI noticed that you tagged the page User talk:A beautiful mind for speedy deletion with the reason "This page is in a foreign language". However, "This page is in a foreign language" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use WP:MFD if you still want the page to be deleted. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 11:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Re:Heads upHi. Back then, I had warned many users for having innapropriate usernames, using Special:Listusers. If you see one and feel that it is innapropriate enough, you can report it at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. There still remains about a dozen users I've tagged with innapropriate usernames, so feel free to report them or I can do so myself, and if they are indefinately blocked then their usertalkpages and userpages can be deleted after a few months. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 12:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Geheh, no harm!Well, I tagged your page because it wasn't an "article" per se. Not everything here has to relate to history per se. But you're right, I'm just a user like you, with just as much or as little authority. Becoming an admin, I'll advise, is HARD stuff. It's not something to think about for a good while. They insist adminship is "not a big deal", but they sure don't make it easy to obtain! I may not have any authority, but I do know a thing or two just as a user, so I'm still good for answering questions, I think. I see you've figured out how to set up a talk page archive of your own, by the by. Well done! That's a good step if you do wanna become an admin. They like it if your old talk page contents are archived instead of deleted. Easier to peruse so they can study your past correspondence. Having a good personality is important, so they like to check that out. - Vianello (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
User pages and usernamesWikipedia's open nature is both a blessing and a curse. It has meant that over the last 7 years we have had some particular long- and medium-term repeat vandals. These people have a complex psychosexual problem that leads them to obsess over particular subjects or forms of vandalism. These "one-handed" vandals gain a particular and specific enjoyment from what they're obsessing over. Some like to create "shocking" usernames that push a minority point of view (who was behind 9/11, for instance). Some like to attack specific users, even long after they've left Wikipedia. Some like to move pages to strange names. And one liked to lampoon (I think that's what he thought he was doing) Wikipedia's ideals. We deal with all of these Long Term Abuse cases in similar ways. We tend to mix the policies of revert, block and ignore and denial of recognition with an unofficial policy of throwing obstacles in their path. The user you've spotted, Wikipedia is Neopaganism! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is one of the latter, an obstacle in the path of the tiresome Communism vandal. On a related note, we don't forbid sockpuppetry. There are several reasons to have declared second accounts, and even some reasons to have second accounts that are not declared. We don't, unless there is evidence of abuse, restrict people to one account. Many - most - people only use one, Some have several for different purposes. And sometimes you get one created, like the one you're worried about, for a single practical purpose and then forgotten. I previously offered advice to you about not worrying over user pages. I'd extend that now to include user accounts. Especially old ones. In a place with nothing but backlogs, this is one area that we're usually well on top of. Feel free to report recently created abusive-sounding account names to WP:UAA if you so wish, but it really won't be of that much help. There are so many places that need help, and so many articles as yet unwritten and unedited, that old usernames, old user pages and content of almost any sort outside of the article namespace really must get a low priority. People applying for adminship are commonly penalized for spending too much time on such scattered minutiae and not enough on our true purpose, creating articles! ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 19:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC) In response to your questionsFirst off, it CAN be hard to know if someone's an admin sometimes. The easiest way is just to go to their user page (not their talk page, mind) and take a look around. Admins are required to identify themselves as such on their user pages, I believe. Second, regarding your concerns about having to remove something because another user doesn't like it, that's a little more complicated. You see, GENERALLY speaking, someone won't tell you to do something just because they "don't like it". Well, that might be the hidden reason, but even if it is, if they say so outright you can pretty much laugh them off. Anyway, things on Wikipedia run through processes. You can remove something if someone complains about it, but you aren't compelled to under any circumstances. If the problem is something on your user page or talk page, someone will GENERALLY just ask you to take it down, unless it's something really awful or egregious (in which case they can take it down themselves). No, what happens more typically, and what happened in the case of your article that got us talking, is that someone just flags an article for attention. See, only admins can actually delete articles. What I did, basically, was put up a little red flag that said "Hey, this page is in violation of X Y and Z official policies, it needs to be taken down." You can do this too, if you encounter an article that probably or definitely doesn't belong. If you'd wanted to, you could have contested this and chosen to explain why, in your opinion, it does NOT violate those. Then the admins would look the situation over and come down on one side or the other. Of course, I and a lot of other users will happily revoke these little "flags" when confronted with a good reason without even having to get the administrators involved. So, I can't just go and destroy your content (well, except by vandalizing it or blanking the page, but then people could and should undo that and give me a warning or block me). But I, or another user, can let the administrators know it might have an issue that needs looked at. I know at times it seems weird how much power individual users do have on Wikipedia, and it doesn't always end up working out for the best. But all in all, you might be surprised how fair people can be here. I know I was! Does this answer your question/concern? I may have misunderstood exactly what you were wondering. Just remember, unless an administrator asks you to make a change, you're never strictly REQUIRED to. People can ask you, advise you, or order you (if they're impolite), but they can't make you do something against your will unless they convince an administrator. And like I said, it's hard to become an admin, and I think most of them are pretty even-handed. So you're in good shape, I bet. - Vianello (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Re:StatusboxHi. It uses a monobook script in your javascript page. It then allows links which you manually update. I don't have time right now but I'll show you how it works later if you would like to have it. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 12:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
statusChangerConfig = {
statusList : [ 'in', 'out' ],
}; but then leaving the rest in place and bypassing? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 12:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Response/ThanksAw shucks, thanks for the barnstar! I really appreciate the gesture. I'm glad to see there's progress being made on your end. As far as I can tell, the stuff in your sandbox looks legit to me. The only concern I might want to pre-empt (besides the admitted 'plagarism', which you'll be able to fix pretty easily) would be the fact that a lot of this regards something that is yet to come. Some people might lift the concern of WP:CRYSTAL. You'll want to make it clear that this is something that is, right now, notable, and NOT something you're arguing will be one day. I can't offer much in the way of good suggestions there, as I am totally unfamiliar with the topic. But really, asserting notability isn't horribly hard. Just be sure to include footnotes and a reference list (I love the way Wikipedia sets those up automatically if you just add the reflist template), and you'll probably be unmolested as long as the references are legitimate. You're doing really well so far as I can see! - Vianello (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Question
RE:ThanksIt was no trouble at all but if you do want to give me a barnstar you can either drop it on my talk page or in the section of my userpage User:Stardust8212#Barnstars. I'm glad you were able to get your email sorted out. Stardust8212 13:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Regarding your speedy deletion questionTotally no biggie. What that phrase means, essentially, is that the article is on one of those given topics, and, to make it short and sweet, doesn't demonstrate why the heck anyone should care. Well, I should probably qualify that more. Essentially, it means the article doesn't put forward anything that demonstrates it even might be notable. Take a look at WP:Notability and its sub-pages for some information. Let me give you an example. If I make a page about my niece, that's blatantly non-notable. You could put a db-bio up on the page and safely expect it to be deleted. Nobody knows or cares about my niece (well, except her family and friends), there are no sources to establish she satisfies any notability criteria or ever will, etc. Now, if you think an article has a shot at notability but just doesn't have sources yet, or if it doesn't meet a SPECIFIC speedy deletion criterion, you might put a subst:prod template (in curly brackets, as always) up instead, followed by an explanation of why it ought to be deleted. For example, in curly brackets rather than quotes, "subst:prod|It's a page about the user's cat. Do I really need to explain the problem with this?" This starts a countdown of five days, during which others can remove the template if they feel it's erroneous or if they fix the problem. For example, if I make a page about my cat... well, there is no speedy deletion criterion for "non-notable pets", so you'd probably want to put a subst:prod template up (even though I bet you could get away with tagging it under db-vandalism or db-nonsense). Now, if you think the issue is going to be controversial, or if someone removes the prod template for no reason or for a really flimsy one, your recourse is an AfD template. You can then set up a page at AfD explaining why you feel the page should be deleted. If you use Twinkle, that handy program will set this page up for you automatically (though it sometimes takes a second). Other users can come in and discuss why they agree/disagree or propose alternatives, and after five days, an admin will make a ruling based on the discussion and act appropriately. Unlike subst:prod, AfD notices are not to be removed from pages until the subject is closed (and users who do so should be warned). Another tool you might want to be aware of is subst:prod-nn. If you just plain want to argue a page is non-notable, but it ISN'T elegible for a specific speedy deletion criterion, you can use this. Essentially, it affirms that you have attempted to find sources to verify the page as notable and have come up empty. You SHOULD actually do so before using this template, of course. It also provides links so others can confirm this. Try it out in your sandbox if you want. It carries a little more weight if you're arguing non-notability. Is that all clear enough? Any questions? - Vianello (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
ReasonsNever use the {{db}} tag without giving a reason. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Re:QuestionHi. It says on my userpage, I registered on October 4, 2006. My first edit was at 20:52 UTC. If you're wondering about my edits, you can check the first edit counter here, although it's a bit slow. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 13:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC) TWINKLEIf you want to be a newpage patroller, I suggest you use Twinkle. Thanks.Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)  Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching! Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
SpornHello Tm93! I saw your comment at Redvers' talk page, apparently about the article Sporn you created? Yes, I'm aware of that joke, and I'm not surprised that the article was removed. In the future however, if it attracts more controversy, a mention of it might fit somewhere in the main Spore article under a (sub)section called Criticism (which doesn't exist yet). Cheers, Face 10:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Shaka Laka Boom Boom (Indian Drama serial)A couple of things. First, you're right. It is bad form for the creator of an article to remove a speedy deletion tag from the page. In general, other editors can remove speedy tags if appropriate, but if it gets quickly retagged, the best approach is to add {{hangon}} and start discussion. (By contrast, any editor can remove the {{prod}} tag at any time, and once it's been removed (unless by clear vandalism), it can't be re-added.) Back to Umerfhussain. Had he done it more than once, I would have issued a warning while I was considering the page. There is a warning template, {{uw-speedy}}, for editors who inappropriately delete speedy deletion tags from articles they create. You could have added that to the creator's talk page to advise him. (Any editor can warn other editors, and the warning templates are standardized, neutrally-written warnings.) Had there been a valid rationale, I would have either restored the tag or deleted the article on the spot. Since there was no rationale, I didn't restore the tag. And since it didn't qualify under any of the criteria, I added the appropriate cleanup tags ({{notability}} and {{unreferenced}}, if I recall correctly). —C.Fred (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: Wiki 'birthday' questionThat works. Why do you ask, though? - Vianello (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey,By reading your UBX's, I see you're pretty cool too. Just know that I edit more in the Simple English Wikipedia. It's good to meet another Christian here on the English Wikipedia! Cheers -- America †alk 18:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: Userbox sizeOh jeez. I have no idea. I don't use 'em, personally. That's the kind of fancy-pants visual arrangement I'm afraid I don't know squat about. Let me know if you get it sorted out though, and until/unless that happens, I'll let you know if I figure it out. - Vianello (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC) {{helpme}} How do I change the size of a userbox that is already created? I have alot of userboxes on my user page. I am organizing them and it would help if I could resize some of them. Tm93 (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
QuestionCan someone give me the link to where I can create my own userbox?Tm93 (talk) 06:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
HelloHello Tm93. My name is Ezekiel but everyone calls me Zeke. I see you've met my good friend American Eagle. We are both good friends and baptists though we don't know each other personally. I've looked at your user page and you seem to have a lot in common with me when it comes to life and video-games. It's good to know there is other Christian Wikipedians out there. Please if you want to join WikiProject Christianity. Best regards.--Ezekiel †alk 15:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Here our list of goals as copied from the page.
Best Regards.--Ezekiel †alk 18:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC) It's actually quite simple to sign up. Leave your signature on this page and your in. You will automatically receive newsletters from Tinucherian. Any more questions you can contact me anytime. Best regards.--Ezekiel †alk 18:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Click where it says on this page in the last message and leave your sig at the bottom of the page. The point is to expand Christian information across Wikipedia, showing your new userbox is unnecessary. Any more questions? Best Regards.--Ezekiel †alk 18:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Oh that is no problem. All I was saying is to make as many Christian related edits as possible. If something is deleted or undid by and admin don't panic. That's normal, it's happened to me many times . I see your using StatusBot. Here's an easier method of showing your status, follow this link WP:QUI and follow the directions and you'll have Qui which is an easier method of showing status and its also shows friends status as long as the also have Qui. Any questions, Contact me. Best Regards.--Ezekiel †alk 18:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Hmm, you'll have to be more specific on the artical your talking about. I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I'm sorry it took me a while to reply.--Ezekiel †alk 13:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Great!Thats nice to hear:-D I'm sorry for not getting back to you quickly lately:-( I've been busy with other tasks. Happy editing:-)--SJP (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC) userbox relocationHi, just a heads-up that a userbox you have on your pages (interest in conspiracy theories) has changed location to User:Sappho'd/Userboxes/Conspiracybutnoreptoids Cheers. Drywontonmee (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC) By the way...
|
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia
