User talk:Wednesday Next

Welcome!

Hello, Wednesday Next, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

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 need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Wfgh66

Wow! I never would have guessed that Wfgh66 was such a major puppetmaster. 532 sockpuppets!!!! Wednesday Next (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the number is stunning, I am not surprised in light of Wfgh66's fanaticism... --Loremaster (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, yes, it was primarily the number that stunned me as well. Wednesday Next (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, Paul Smith claims that he mostly uses a public computer so its possible and highly probable that the majority of these accounts belong to other people... --Loremaster (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Smith is back through a new sockpuppet named Solar eclipse17. Can you have him neutralized? --Loremaster (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NASA Spinoff

Hi there. Thanks for helping so much with the NASA Spinoff page. I left a response to you there, regarding separating the pages. (I don't think we should.) --AM (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References and bibliographical sources

Hi Wed, just to be clear, a bibliography is a listing of reference sources and does not necessarily have to be "connected" to a citation or quote. The bibliography represents sources of information that were consulted in formulating or researching a topic. FWiW, if there are sources that were not used, but may be of benefit to readers, often these can be listed in the "Further reading" section that Wikipedia has adapted. In the "real world" of publishing, there is no such thing as further reading, you either use the source for information or not, you don't put down speculative resources that may or may not be of use. Bzuk (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

This style of References-Notes-Bibliography-Further reading (optional)- External links has now been in place for over two years, survived countless GA, FA, and feature article reviews and is in place in approximately 16,000 articles. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Try to be calm and enter a discourse about this type of style convention. There is no need to go about establishing points. I intend to revise the Citizen Kane in a major rewrite, had informed all the contributors of such and have begun the process by finding research material. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I reiterate, would you like to begin a discussion? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
In 2004, one of the things that didn't make a great deal of sense was the way that bibliographies were used in Wikipedia. A few years back, the term wasn't even used as "references" was taken to be a bibliography list. The term "further reading" was again another Wiki anachronism that was tolerated as referring to a bibliography but some editors took it at "face value" and began to insist that citations had to be directly linked in a bibliographical list or be sorted into the further reading section. As I indicated earlier, bibliographies merely indicate sources. At that time, that was the style guide used: Notes and references, followed by Further reading and External links. The last section is also a bit clumsy as external links is really another form of reference sources, only in an electronic form. In 2005, an editor from England made the case that the term Bibliography was a more accurate term, and the MoS was revised to accept that terminology. Two years ago, another editor from Sweden made another revision that again was controversial in establishing that a Bibliographical list was merely a form of reference sourcing. Although it wasn't immediately adopted, little by little, GA and FA reviewers accepted that the new convention wasn't at variance with the intended direction of providing reliable sources. That led to the adoption of the following sections: References as a main (L2 heading) followed by Notes and then Bibliography as secondary sections grouped under References. Again, this was debated and discussed in various project groups. Whenever the convention is under review, a posting is made to the talk pages, for example, if you read back about six months, you will find the Anna May Wong talk page that is about style guides and how to proceed with developing the article into a GA candidate. I too have no interest in editwarring, and I hope you will want to continue this discussion because this new direction in quoting sources has come about over a lengthy period and has involved many editors like yourself. You may have to keep an open mind about all the ramifications of implementing change, I know I had to adapt to other people's line of thinking, and what finally swayed me was that there was a sensible and understandable body of evidence behind the new convention and that it was acceptable at project and review groups as being a useful standard. FWiW, I do enjoy speaking to other editors in this Wikywacky world we inhabit, thanks for the chance to "banter." Bzuk (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Take your concerns to the proper forums. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
You may have noticed that there is a wide divergence in the type of styles that are being used in wikipedia. Blind adherence to a style that is still being reassessed is not the way to go. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
In your opinion. Obviously, I differ. Duh! Wednesday Next (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Causing a series of disruptive edits to WP:POINT and then WP:DTTR, beside being unaware of WP:CIVIL is not making things better; try making your arguments in the talk pages on cites and layout. FWiW, now that we have entered into the phase of WP:BRD, make your opinions known in an appropriate way. Bzuk (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Cryptex

Why, oh why did you undo my edit on the the page in question?ABC101090 (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the Book InfoBox

Hi! Thanx for that piece of information on the use of the Infobox. I have done this for another book "Homo Ludens" and will fix up the page today. --Михал Орела (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Thank you for the info on the Wikipedia linking issue: internal versus external. I had imagined that a "bot" did such conversion automatically :) --Михал Орела (talk) 07:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a book summary really needs

you said:

"Before continuing to work on this article, please learn more about editing Wikipedia. You are making a real mess of it. First, no sections which contain nothing but a quote from the book. This is supposed to be an article about the book, not extracts from it. All that is needed is a summary and we already have that. Not sure exactly what you think the article needs, but it cannot be used to promote the book, its contents or theories. The article should not be a study guide, a praise of the book, a detailed table of contents or anything else but a summary."

  1. Thanx for your opening remarks: "Before continuing to work on this article, please learn more about editing Wikipedia. You are making a real mess of it."
    2. I have been learning since around May. I even have the Missing Manual by Broughton to help offline. I do not do book summaries every day of my life. I think this is the third one attempted. But I do try :-)
  2. "First, no sections which contain nothing but a quote from the book. This is supposed to be an article about the book, not extracts from it."
    3. The emptiness is a direct consequence of other life-matters interfering such the day job, housework, sleeping, and so on. :-)
  3. "Not sure exactly what you think the article needs, but it cannot be used to promote the book, its contents or theories. The article should not be a study guide, a praise of the book, a detailed table of contents or anything else but a summary."
    4. This I understand exactly; and agree with. :-) I have been struggling with the book on exactly that account. The most problematic part is to find 3-rd party trustworthy resources from which to cite. I adopt the principle, that something is better than nothing, in the expectation that others will come forward to help. I would have preferred to receive your comments and reflect on them and reply before the entire page lost most of its content! 
--Михал Орела (talk) 08:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I also have some serious thoughts on the whole business of the "Book Review". It is clear (?) that the review of a well-known novel such as "Wuthering Heights" will differ from, say, a "Book Review" of "Wikipedia-in-English".

Book matter dictates much of Book review nature. I am interested in the Scientific and Technical Book Reviews. To do justice to the book one needs to give insight; Chapter headings (and the summary) are minimal insight pointers. To give some feeling for what the book is, a brief text from each chapter helps (in my opinion). The difficulty for the reviewer is to know what brief text to choose :-)

Having said that, the review of the Novel will use the characters and the geography/topology to delineate the plot. There is the counterpart in the Scientific field. Characters also play major roles. The topology may be diffuse and plot convoluted, often of both historical and conflictory nature (I think here of Newton versus Leibnitz — how to tell the Calculus story). Any pointers on WB projects for further enlightenment would be much appreciated. --Михал Орела (talk) 08:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

enigma machine

My apologies. It's the template that's shouting then... I'll leave a note there. ww (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qabalah

I have sent both articles to AFD, and semi-protected the pages so that the IPs can't remove them again. I haven't blocked, but will keep an eye out. Black Kite 17:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NAEQ

Ok I'll list it separately, just because you asked nicely.:) Here it is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Aeon English Qabala. Sticky Parkin 21:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, several groups trying to say they are "The" real version happens all the time in these subject areas.:) Sticky Parkin 21:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch

No relation?

To her? ;D TREKphiler hit me ♠ 06:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC) (P.S. Thanx for the cookie. I prefer all chocolate, tho. ;D)[reply]

A likely story. And there's only one of you? For shame. ;D Daniel Eakins ♠go ahead, Lazarus♠

AfD nomination of Indecision (band)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Indecision (band). 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 Wikipedia:Notability and "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/Indecision (band). 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) 01:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Shri Kshatriya Yuvak Sangh

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Shri Kshatriya Yuvak Sangh, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Onel5969 TT me 11:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]