User talk:Timneu22/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Category deletion

I've been trying to narrow the template cats as much as possible. In other words, using general cats for subcats or for templates that can't otherwise be categorized. Lots of cases where a template is in a subcategory AND a main category. In this case, it was in both. Geography infobox and regular old old infobox. Well the template in question was in a category (North American country subdivision infobox templates) which was already indirectly in the Geography infobox category, which is in the general infobox category. So the specific cat basically replaced the 2 general ones. Hopefully I'm not talking gibberish. :) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 00:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well. Maybe we should call it Wikipediaese. :) I'm just trying to get it as organized as possible. I guess that's the best way to sum it up. And templates in particular tended to be categorized in as many places as possible, so you'd end up with overpopulated cats. That's what I'm trying to fix. Probably makes more sense. :) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 02:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11%2C_2001_attacks&curid=5058690&diff=157749198&oldid=157696514

I'm not from PA.. I'm from TX. Maybe the other guy was from PA, but I'm not sure.

Why not use "near Shanksville" ? The crash did not happen in the Shanksville limits... WhisperToMe 01:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox U.S. County question

Low importance question: De Baca County, New Mexico uses the Infobox U.S. County template, but it seems to be generating a link for a .png file, not the .svg file as shown on the template page. There is an .svg file in the commons, but I assume it was not being shown due to a file name mismatch. The syntax on the De Baca page doesn't currently match the template's syntax, but it didn't seem to make a difference in the preview. For now, I've uploaded a .png file so an image will be displayed, so that's not an issue. I was mostly wondering what I was missing, but I'm also bringing up the subject here in case there's another issue that should be attended to. --Mud4t 07:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Is the De Baca SVG file named "Image:Map of New Mexico highlighting De Baca County.svg"? That file is red-linked, so I didn't think it existed. De Baca County is the one exception in the Infobox U.S. County template — because that file couldn't be found, there's actually a line in the template that says "if it's De Baca County, get me the PNG file, not the SVG file:
 [[Image:Map of {{{state}}} highlighting {{{county}}}{{#switch:{{{county}}}|De Baca County = .png|.svg}}
Maybe the file isn't named correctly? In any case, if you can help to get this resolved that would be great — it's not cool to have that exception county in the template. Timneu22 11:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You're right, that file was apparently deleted August 14, 2007. The thing that puzzles me is that the code to get around the missing SVG file seems to have been added February 25, 2007., so I must not have found the full history on this. De Baca County is sometimes spelled DeBaca, so maybe that has something to do with it. At any rate, I've uploaded the SVG file and removed the De Baca specific code in the template (first time editing a template) and all seems to be right in the world again. --Mud4t 21:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use disputed for Image:MontyCartoon.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:MontyCartoon.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 - terrorism?

Thanks for your input on the 9/11 talk page. Funny thing: your quote that Besides, just because there are groups out there who believe the US government was behind it does not make it any less terrorism is an argument I used several times on the talk page, but the wacko conspiracy theorists still don't go for that argument. Go figure.

Have a Wiki Day. Timneu22 09:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Your note put here for your reference. Thanks for the note. I must admit that I really don't see the argument there. The truth is, any time you have an act of terror (in this case, blowing up buildings) committed for the purpose of causing fear and motivating people into commiting actions they otherwise won't, it's terrorism. Whether that act is done by a government or a terrorist group doesn't matter. Of course, I feel that the conspiracy theories are kooky at best. They are not supported by ANY credible evidence. At all. Wikipedia tends to let the inmates run the asylum, it's nice to see that a good number of people like us are getting tired of it. Anyhow, have a great one! --Lendorien 19:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 911tm TfD

I don't know why I closed it as no consensus, but I stand by my decision. If you needed to know why I made a specific closure, it would have been beneficial to ask then, rather than months afterwards. I assume you're wanting my reasoning in response to the current TfD, and I'm soory to say that I don't remember. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 19:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article titles

Hi, do you agree that the Wording section should be retained, with one rider in the last point, as a neater solution than dividing and repeating?

Can you advise on whether the last item in the current "Article titles and first sentences" can find a better home? It's the only one that doesn't quite fit, but it would be good to retain something like the current structure, don't you think? Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Article_titles.2C_headings_and_sections. Tony (talk) 05:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove the Article titles section? This clearly needs to be its own section. After my edit, the sections were appropriate. How can you remove "article titles"?? Article titles are different than headings, thus the sections should be separate. These sections are logical:
  • Article titles
  • Article titles and first sentences (discusses how the titles should be introduced in the first sentence)
  • Headings
  • Markup and formatting of headings
  • Section management

Timneu22 14:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question, and you have reverted it to a state of relatively poor organisation. Why is there all of this repetition now? Why is it that "Special characters such as the slash (/), plus sign (+), curly brackets ({ }) and square brackets ([ ]) are avoided; the ampersand (&) is spelled out as and unless it is part of a formal name." doesn't apply to headings? Why has "As with titles" been left in several of the boringly repeated sections under "Wording of section headings"?

There is no good reason to have a separate section on article titles where ALL BUT ONE of the points apply to both. I covered this by marking that one as applying to titles only.

I think you're concerned that somehow there just should be a separate section on titles. Well, not if it causes a whole lot of repetition, and right at the top of the MOS.

I'm reverting tomorrow unless you provide a good reason for all of this repetition (and, indeed, non-application of the "Special characters" point to section headings), apart from your edit summary, which said simply that there "should" be a separate section for article titles. Um ... why? Tony (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The current sections are LOGICAL.
  1. The first thing an article has is a title. Thus, this is section 1.1
  2. Next, an article has a first sentence. 1.2
  3. After this, an article has sections. 1.3
The next sections could/should probably be subsections of 1.3, but frankly I haven't updated these sections because they seem "ok" (at best) right now.
There can be no debate that articles, then first sentences, then headings are the three primary pieces to beginning an article. Thus, there should be no debate as to each having its own section. If I missed something within those sections, I apologize. Some information for titles and headings is the same, but that doesn't mean they should be lumped into one section. By having separate sections, a new user can easily see how articles flow. By lumping titles and headings in the same section, it is very confusing.
Timneu22 16:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You need a lesson in managing the collaborative aspects of WP. The first one is NOT TO SHOUT IN EDIT SUMMARIES, and NOT TO ASSERT THAT THERE CAN NO DEBATE. This is generally regarded as rude and boorish.

While your input has, in the end, produced a better section, you left it on each occasion in an unsatisfactory mess. It could have been accomplished without the unpleasantness. Tony (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well it got accomplished. Sorry you think I'm rude and boorish. I guess I'm not as sophisticated as you. Timneu22 12:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rickey Henderson Photo

The photo was uploaded by someone who is a suspected sockpuppet, who has lied about the provenance of photographs before. Furthermore, the latest that photograph to be taken was 1998, and at that time I really doubt that most people had in their possession the quality of camera it would require to take such a high speed action shot. The picture you have up there now is much more obviously a picture taken by a fan, and a trusted user that I know. . Googie man 01:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this lends some support to why I'm suspicious of this photo, as this is taken from the user page of the person who uploaded it. So there's your evidence. Googie man 01:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, absolutely it should be deleted. Thanks, Googie man 12:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant Rickey Henderson coaching quote

No problem for removing it. I'm keeping an eye on the user Jjj222/Ghm224/Pascack/Joeidaho (and who knows how many other sockpuppets he has), who is obviously a huge Mets fan and is trying to turn as much of baseball on Wikipedia into a Mets fan site as possible. Take care, Googie man 23:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rickey Article continued

Absolutely I'd like to help make it a good article - what do you have in mind? Googie man 19:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)