User talk:Minaker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello Minaker, welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi!

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

You might like some of these links and tips:

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing! -- Alf melmac 22:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changing attribution for an edit.

Re [1], see WP:CHA. -- Jeandré, 2006-09-28t19:27z

Re [2]. The WP:CHA page states that changing edit attributions are not done anymore. "Edits have not been reattributed for over a year. There are no indications when requests made here will be executed, if ever."
Technical questions can be asked at WP:VPT. -- Jeandré, 2006-09-29t11:40z

[edit] AMA request

Hi, I saw your request for advocacy here and would be willing to assist. If you still want it, leave a message on my talk page, or if you would prefer to talk privately you can e-mail me. Thanks. Trebor 22:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corrected Third opinion link

I posted a correction to Wikipedia:Help desk#edit dispute -- where do I post?. The right link is this. PrimeHunter 13:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third Opinion

Thank you for listing your dispute at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Your request did not follow the guidelines for listing disputes. These guidelines are in place because they make sure that the editor who writes the Third Opinion is not biased, and that (s)he can easily see what the dispute is about.

The description of the dispute should be concise and neutral, and you should sign with the timestamp only. A concise and neutral description means that only the subject matter of the dispute should be described, and not your (nor anyone else's) views on it. For example, in a dispute about reliable sources, do not write "He thinks this source is unreliable", but rather write "Dispute about the reliability of a source". To sign with only the timestamp, and without your username, use five tildes (~~~~~) instead of four.

Your request for a Third Opinion may have been edited by another editor to follow the guidelines - feel free to edit it again if necessary. If the dispute you want to list is of such a nature that it cannot follow the guidelines, another part of the dispute resolution process may be able to help you. For example, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts is a good place to alert others to a particular editor's behaviour. Thank you for going to the dispute resolution process with your dispute. User:Krator (t c) 16:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chauvinism‎

I hope you don't mind, I moved your comment down to the bottom under my already existing comment. According to the talk page guidelines, new threads go on the bottom of the page. Also, while not a policy, the image for the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle shows that the person making the bold change and disagreeing with the revert should take it to talk (instead of simply reverting again). Anyway, we are on the talk page now, which is a good step. Hopefully we can proceed from here. The reason why I am commenting here is to try and address some of your concerns that seemed personal, and therefore not appropriate for an article talk page. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 01:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you liked my edit. Regarding talk page placement, see WP:TALK#New topics and headings on talk pages where it says Start new topics at the bottom of the page. I've been here for almost 2 years and all the talk pages I've encountered "bottom post". Just look at a high profile page such as WP:AN or WP:VPP and notice the newest timestamps are towards the bottom. Also, if you click the "+" sign tab on talk pages (the one that says "Start a new section on this discussion page" if you hover over it), it takes you to a form that is intended for starting new threads, and when you hit "save", it automatically bottom posts. SO bottom posting is hardcoded into the wiki interface. I'm curious where you read that "top posting" is the norm because I'd be interested to see that (and possibly correct it). Thanks for your comments on the chauvinism talk page.-Andrew c [talk] 15:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good call - Liar Paradox

Good call on removing the pop culture section on Liar Paradox. While I tend to favor inclusiveness as a WP philosophy, I think you're right to remove trivia sections that don't serve to provide context to the overall article, especially with articles whose subjects are not inherently pop-culture related. I do intend to try to provide a summary of the usage of the liar paradox outside of philosophy, but with more examples and better explanation. A popular culture section, at its best, should not be a list of minutia, but rather a well-written summarization that helps answer the question, "why is this important?" You can see my comments on the liar's paradox talk page in the pop culture section. Please let me know if you feel otherwise. J Riddy (Talk || Contributions) 22:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)