User talk:Yamara
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
| 2006-2007 |
[edit] You're invited!
...to the next New York City Meetup!
 |
New York City Meetup
|
In the morning, there are exciting plans for a behind-the-scenes guided tour of the American Museum of Natural History.
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues (see the last meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Cory_Everson_Get_Hard.jpg
I have tagged Image:Cory_Everson_Get_Hard.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. MECU≈talk 14:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Cory_Eversons_Gotta_Sweat.jpg
I have tagged Image:Cory_Eversons_Gotta_Sweat.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. MECU≈talk 14:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] I feel you require a barnstar...
 |
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
| ...for that brilliant template for Time Topics you made, it is something I have always wanted. Thanks! ^ .^ --124.171.21.177 (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC) |
- You're welcome, 124.171.21.177! wherever you are... -- Yamara 17:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template Time Measurement and Standards Topics
In many time related articles, you are deleting most references in the "see also" sections in a rapid tempo, while adding a template. In my opinion this is rather reader unfriendly. I intend to restore many of the deleted referencces. Could you please stop doing this till other editors have an opportunity to react? −Woodstone (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Alas, it is already done, at least for that template.
- (Recopied from my comment at User talk:Woodstone:)
- Sorry if I stepped on any toes, but I was only removing "See Also" listings from where they duplicate links on the template. Many articles have excessively long See Also lists, that append without adequate explanation, and templates seek to address that.
- Specifically regarding 12-hour clock and 24-hour clock articles, references to each are in the body of either article, making the See Alsos redundant, even without the Time Measurement Template. Also, in the 12-hour clock article, Comparison of the 12-hour and 24-hour clocks is linked twice in the article above, in appropriate places, and should probably not be in the See Also list a third time.
- In any case, no page has been left unlinked where it was linked before. I'm very careful about that. Cheers. -- Yamara 16:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] What's the problem with redirects to templates?
Sorry, I don't understand your point. What's the problem with redirects to templates? For example, right now, Daylight saving time is using a redirect, since its source contains the text {{Time measurement and standards}}, but I don't see any problem with how the article looks on my screen. Also, I checked some of the other pages that used the overcapitalized name (right after I made it a redirect to the lowercased name), and they worked just fine too. Wikipedia standards are to not capitalize later words in a title, so I'd rather do it the "right" way if it works. Eubulides (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- There is no technical problem with redirects to templates. I guess that you are more comfortable with redoing all the pages that use the templates, so I did that. By the way, other templates have the same naming problem, e.g., "Chronology Topics" should be "Chronology topics". But I'll leave that for you. One more thing, please don't put more than one blank line before and after the template call, as the extra blank lines cause misformatting. Eubulides (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] History of timekeeping devices
I've moved the page to reflect the comments at peer review. Would you mind helping out with making it more informative on the actual timekeeping? Even just providing some sources would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! J-ſtanContribsUser page 22:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Japanese nengō
The Chronology template is an alluring addition to Wikipedia. In my view, there is no doubt that this template enhances the quality and value of the project. However, there is a small problem with the decision to construe Japanese era names as a subset of Regnal names -- not that it's entirely wrong, but rather, it just happens that this subject turns out to be quite a bit more complicated.
At this point, I'm just wanting to give you a quick head's up just in case your edit engenders any prickly complaints or criticisms. Not to worry .... I hope to have more time to re-visit this next week. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm continuing to try to think through the problem your work creates, in my view. It's not enough to criticize what you have done. It's a relatively easy matter to contrive an argument explaining why something you've done is a little bit off-base, but it's much more difficult to suggest something better. I'm still pondering; but tentatively, maybe you'll consider a modest, yet meaningful change:
- (1) Please consider removing Japanese as a sub-set of Regnal year; and instead, the link could be re-positioned elsewhere. In support of this modification, please revisit Japanese era name. The newly devised Greorian calendar year/nengō conversion table might help you understand at a glance why, despite the impression a reasonable person could otherwise develop on the basis of post-Meiji period examples, it becomes unhelpful to conflate nengō and regnal years across the span of Japanese history since the 8th century. Throughout the reigns of serial emperors, it is indisputable that a new era was often proclaimed in conjunction with the accession of a new sovereign; but there were also many instances in which new eras were proclaimed for other reasons entirely.
- (2) As an constructive alternative, why not profit from the plausible hint which flows from what you can discover for yourself as you browse the English-language web pages of Japan's National Diet Library -- here. Until the arrival of Europeans, the Japanese used a lunar calendar and nengō simultaneously; and afterwards, they adapted to the juggling of Gregorian calendar conventions a matter of course. In your unique template, why not re-position the link for Japanese era name as a newly contrived sub-set of "Calendars"? My sense is that it's an arguably good idea to locate this Japanese nengō link at the bottom of this section, e.g.,
-
- Pre-Julian Roman · Original Julian · Proleptic Julian · Revised Julian
- Gregorian · Proleptic Gregorian · Old Style and New Style
- Astronomical year numbering · Islamic · ISO week date
- Lunisolar · Lunar · Solar
- Japanese nengō ...?
- Does this small suggestion really require a more fully-developed explanation? Without more, perhaps this brief note will be sufficiently persuasive .... What do you think? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- There are other points of debate on the Regnal year and Era name pages that should probably be addressed before "my" little template is taken to task. I'm not proprietary about the template; this is Wikipedia. :)
- However, a solution presents itself; I've added Era name to the template. I leave it to you to fight for its exclusion from Regnal year! -- Yamara 02:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
-
Rather than disagreeing with you, it's easier to argue that yours was the better editing choice. As revealed in the newly-created conversion table for Japanese era names, in most cases, an era change is attributable to the accession of a new Japanese sovereign.
As I considered how best to respond to the questions raised for me by your Chronology template, I was reminded of an appendix in a relatively recent book:
- Regnal periods were declared once or more often during the life of individual emperors, and provided the formal basis for calendar dating .... Some nengō are obscure, and little used outside specialized texts. Some are widely known, and have a personality all their own: for instance, Genroku conveys a significance somewhat akin to the use of siècle de Louis Quatorze in French history. [emphasis added]
-
- -- Cullen, L.M. (2003). A History of Japan, 1582-1941: Internal and External Worlds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-82115-X (cloth) ISBN 0-521-529918-2 (paper)
-
When I re-visited Cullen's comments, it became clear that my view of nengō had been marginalized, perhaps with good reason in a book dealing with the range of transitions which account for the character of modern Japan. This doesn't resolve the issue in terms of our broader Wikipedia context, but it may be persuasive in the narrowed context of this template.
Changing gears somewhat: Is there a place in the Chronology template for Sexagenary cycle? If so, where? In the "Calendar" section perhaps?
-
-
- Pre-Julian Roman · Original Julian · Proleptic Julian · Revised Julian
- Gregorian · Proleptic Gregorian · Old Style and New Style
- Astronomical year numbering · Islamic · ISO week date
- Lunisolar · Lunar · Solar
- Sexagenary cycle · Chinese · Japanese? · Korean ...?
-
What do you think about incorporating more than one internal link option in the Chronology template:
-
- (a) as a sub-set of Eras and Epochs/Regnal year--->Japanese and also
- (b) as a sub-set of Calendars/Sexagenary cycle--->Japanese?
Of course, I must acknowledge that my persistence here is, in part, a function of my personal interests in pre-Meiji period Japan; but there you have it. In no sense should you feel that I'm "taking you to task" for anything. No, not at all. If anything, my inquiries simply demonstrate the extent to which I have engaged the spirit and substance of your template's effective contribution to making Wikipedia better. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was wondering where that cycle was hiding. I've reconfigured the calendar section of the Chronology template, but emphasized the cycle's Chinese origin, as it will be more familiar to English speakers (i.e. "Chinese New Year" is better known than "Japanese New Year"); currently, the article does the same in its first sentence.
- And I did not suspect you of taking me to task. I can sometimes be too tongue-in-cheek. Thank you for your kind praise.
- Good luck with the historiography of these ancient methods. It's important to know not only how people counted the days, but when they began to count them in what fashion. Cheers, Yamara 14:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Invitation
Hello. You may have seen that some Wikipedia articles lack sources to given dates, timelines and chronologies.
If you feel that you could like to help in making all articles more reliable and well sourced in this regard, we would like to encourage you to use, as part of your daily editing and when {{fact}} is not enough for requesting clearly and specifically a citation or source for dates, timeline or chronology, the following inline tags:
- {{Histfact}} displays {history source needed} for requesting sources for historical claims and history context. Click here for more information
- {{Timefact}} displays {chronology source needed} for requesting timelines, dates and chronology sources. Click here for more information
At WP Timeline Tracer, we thank you for using these tools and for helping to make Wikipedia articles more accurate and reliable.
Daoken 10:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Yes it is :) . Thank you Daoken 13:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] STOP REMOVING MY EDITS
STOP REMOVING MY EDITS ON THE PAGE TITLED "CRITICISMS OF GEORGE W BUSH" WITHOUT LETTING ME KNOW WHY YOU ARE MAKING THEM!
You haven't given anyone a reason. I have been posting stuff up on the talk page. You know that the section is HORRIBLY written. I made it extremely fair when I wrote it. STOP REMOVING MY EDITS WITHOUT GIVING REASON IN THE TALK SECTION.Kgj08 (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Patricia K. Robertson
I see you reverted this edit. However, any editor is entitled to remove a prod tag, and it's certainly not vandalism. Could I ask why you reverted? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Moreover, I have reverted the template you left on the I.P.'s talk page here. The I.P. did nothing wrong, and there is nothing to warn it about. I confess to being thoroughly baffled by your actions, and I'd appreciate any explanation. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I prodded every article for a non-incumbent candidate in the Alberta election (except for a few - Sean Maw, Avalon Roberts, David Crutcher, Craig Chandler, Arthur Kent, Kent Hehr, George Read, Mike Robinson, Len Skowronski, Ken Allred, Rachel Notley, Naomi Rankin, Link Byfield, and Ed Klop - who seemed to make alternative claims not notability, and one - Christina Gray - that had inexplicably already survived an AfD). I am virtually certain that all of them were created under conflicts of interest; however, whether they were created under conflict-of-interest has no bearing on whether an article should be deleted. In any event, I suspect I'll wind up bringing this to WP:AFD where I suspect it will be deleted. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- To add to suspicion of conflict of interest, User:Rairsc just made this edit about Robertson's opponent. I've given a vandalism warning. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I prodded every article for a non-incumbent candidate in the Alberta election (except for a few - Sean Maw, Avalon Roberts, David Crutcher, Craig Chandler, Arthur Kent, Kent Hehr, George Read, Mike Robinson, Len Skowronski, Ken Allred, Rachel Notley, Naomi Rankin, Link Byfield, and Ed Klop - who seemed to make alternative claims not notability, and one - Christina Gray - that had inexplicably already survived an AfD). I am virtually certain that all of them were created under conflicts of interest; however, whether they were created under conflict-of-interest has no bearing on whether an article should be deleted. In any event, I suspect I'll wind up bringing this to WP:AFD where I suspect it will be deleted. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Olimpia Aldobrandini
Thanks for finding the dates for her. Do you know any books or online sources on her with which to increase the article? Neddyseagoon - talk 12:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Stephen Crane barnstar
What an unexpected surprise, thank you! I have taken a break from completely rewriting Crane's bio to finish Emily Dickinson for FAC, but soon I'll get to work in finishing it. It's not even halfway done yet, so hopefully when you check back in a couple months, it'll be even better and perhaps even a Good Article. :) Thanks again, María (habla conmigo) 16:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] New mailing list
There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 21:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] removal of charmed pics.
i uploaded some charmed pictures of prue halliwell and you removed them. i took those shoot using my computer so they would be considered my work. you said that the copyright thingy i put is wrong or whatever. the picture i uploaded was my work and i dont appreciate you deleting it when all im trying to do is make the page better. Jpagan09 (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
how exactly is ANYONE supposed to upload pics and claim it as their own work without it being deleted. in my case, all i did was take a picture of the scene while my dvd was playing. what kind of license what that go under. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpagan09 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
you know what i give up. im just trying to make the better article by putting nice pictures. instead of shooting me down and making me look like an idiot, you could try helping me step by step or something so i don't keep breaking the rules. that would be great as opposed to leaving me sarcastic messages and telling me not to hold my breath. that's fine though. i'll add text and stuff, but i won't even try to upload nice pictures that i did MYSELF if you're just gonna be a jerk about it and continuously deleting them. Jpagan09 (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Vicki Iseman
Hi Yamara, I removed a See also lonk because it is already linked to in the introduction of that article, so per WP:GTL it really isn't needed. Thank you. --72.209.11.186 (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Legit point. I won't revert it again, if it's eliminating a double link. –Yamara ✉ 14:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. Yes, the link is mention pretty prominently since this is pretty much why this article exists in the first place.--72.209.11.186 (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] You are invited!
|
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).
Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Time Times (2008-03)
 |
Time Times |
 |
|
Written by Zginder and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier |
||
|
News
|
||
| Archives • Newsroom | ||
| If you no longer wish to longer recieve this newsletter, please add your name here. Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}. |
||
[edit] Tom Martin
Dear Yamara, what you say is true, but what you have put into the text includes references direct to MSS sources, which is not permitted in Wikipedia (see WP:OR): also these references to Add MSS require the reader to know without being told that Add MSS is a prefix to certain Manuscript collections in the British Library, which you have not mentioned (even if the intention is merely to inform the reader that this information is derived, in the article's published source material, from such a source). Also you have listed the Add MSS as follow-ons to other, published references in the list of references proper at the bottom, so that you have muddled the published and unpublished sources. Also the published sources are given in abbreviated form, which is inappropriate for Wikipedia (e.g. 'Lownes, Bibl. Man. (Bohm)') as hardly anyone will be able to know what you mean, and they should be given in a normal form. In fact they look as if they have just been copied down from an ancient published source, without any critical revision or attempt to reconcile them with modern forms, let alone Wikipedia conventions. As a wikipedia article, all the references (whether presented in Harvard or inline footnote form) need to be to published sources, in recognisable form, and your add mss references and arcane forms in the reflist fall short of this need. As an antiquary interested in the work of Tom Martin I am keen to see this article remain and improve, so I am trying to help you protect it from the boring police who will undoubtedly delete what I had merely lifted aside into footnotes. All is not always what it at first appears. Best wishes Eebahgum (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re. "SAY SOMETHING"
自由万歳 !
Bwa ha ha ha,
—Wikiscient— 22:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Catherine of Aragon
May I know why you took that IP(I forget =P)'s edits as vandalism? 165.21.155.116 (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Removed information and a helpful solution to an issue without explanation. For more info, see the article's talk page. - Yamara ✉ 18:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- There is a consensus for the move on the talk page. Seems that K is favoured over C. Rudget. 19:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, there isn't a consensus for a move. We've been through this several times before. C is the most common spelling as measured in Google hits, and MOS decrees that that should be the page name, regardless of how it's spelled in the article. BTW, 62.56.56.183 is the same person as Chloe2kaii7, so their edits have to be considered together. -- Zsero (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- There is a consensus for the move on the talk page. Seems that K is favoured over C. Rudget. 19:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Please be more careful
I appreciate your vandal patrolling, but if you can't be more careful, you need to stop. You reverted my edits here [1] as vandalism. They were clearly explained in the edit summary. You then templated me with a completely incorrect template accusing me of [2] all sorts. In general it is considered highly uncivil to template regular users. If you think a regular user has acted in bad faith, stop and consider that you might be mistaken, and then politely ask for an explanation on the talk page. I hope this helps.--Docg 19:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- My apologies for the harsh application of "vandal"-- sometimes I get called into the middle of something at work, and I would not not have chosen it with a moment more of thought. However, you did remove content, and your reason was no better than the person adding the content. In that regard, I feel you acted in the wrong. But with ASG. --Yamara ✉ 19:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Time Times (2008-04)
|
Time Times |
|
|
Written by Zginder and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier |
||
|
News
|
||
| Archives • Newsroom | ||
| If you no longer wish to longer recieve this newsletter, please add your name here. Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}. |
||
[edit] Time Times (2008-05)
|
Time Times |
|
|
Written by Zginder and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier |
||
|
News
|
||
| Archives • Newsroom | ||
| If you no longer wish to longer recieve this newsletter, please add your name here. Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}. |
||
[edit] Thanks!
Hello! :) Thanks for joining Portal:Feminism/Feminism_Task_Force. --Grrrlriot (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Time travel, or space-time travel?
Yes, I removed a paragraph from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel#Time_travel.2C_or_space-time_travel.3F
That's because it's wrong.
And I posted why in the discussion page, many hours before.
Please read before you send me a message about how I might be in error; I'm not!--Mr. Shawn H. Corey (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just as a coda to interested readers, not a response to "Mr. Shawn H. Corey", I did address this at the same time as my revert on the talk page at Time travel, where the user proceeded to declare me a "little worm" before being reverted again by yet another editor. Posting under the username Shawncorey, Mr. Corey has made a total of one edit on Wikipedia to date—not including his dozen or so emendations to talk pages—which he has vowed to repeat, "until it it correct". Cheers. —Yamara ✉ 16:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Wrong is wrong. And I have fought with worst than you. I can only think you do not want the truth; you must have some hidden agenda. I shall repeat myself: Any arguments citing special relativity are bogus; use general relativity.--Mr. Shawn H. Corey (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I have just read your home page. You are a total asshole. "This user keeps his userboxes where they %@#* well belong" What type of language is that? Your oppinion is irrelevant.--Mr. Shawn H. Corey (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Wrong is wrong. And, correcting for grammar, no he has not. There's a very unhidden Three revert rule on Wikipedia, as interested readers likely already know, which Mr. Corey has already violated. I've taken this up on his talk page, where, when I have anything to say to him, I address these concerns. Wikipedia is also, as most folks know, not a place where "fights", as such, are tolerated, since it is not like most of the internet, where arguments from strident anonymous points of view are embraced, even delighted in.
- Were I to offer an opinion on such people, I would imagine that they are either ignorant of Wikipedia's policies, and so assume that the "trolling" that occurs elsewhere online is unstoppable on a wiki. —Or, if they have already discovered that Wikipedia blocks disruptive editors, and return to disrupt again, I would surmise that they are masochists, though they may well be ignorant of this dependence on being abused.
- Either one of those, or the poster is twelve years of age. Not yet an adult. That can happen sometimes.
- Cheers, everyone. —Yamara ✉ 22:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
Please use WP:AN/3RR to report 3RR violations...NOT WP:AIV. Thank you.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Though the 3RR seems to be the least of it, as his text above indicates, which is why I reported him. Thanks for warning him about WP:NPA. Let's see if he takes it like an adult. Yamara ✉ 23:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008
|
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).
We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Notability of Pawn (webcomic)
A tag has been placed on Pawn (webcomic) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Time Times (2008-06)
|
Time Times |
|
|
Written by Zginder and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier |
||
|
News
|
||
| Archives • Newsroom | ||
| If you no longer wish to longer recieve this newsletter, please add your name here. Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}. |
||
[edit] MfD nomination of Portal:Time/Selected biography/May 2008
Portal:Time/Selected biography/May 2008, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Time/Selected biography/May 2008 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Time/Selected biography/May 2008 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Yamara ✉ 15:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- I entirely approve! Yamara ✉ 19:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Masculine and Feminine
Thanks for your well written and eirenic comments.
Historically, my first edit to masculine was to replace what was currently there with a simple redirect.
Each additional step has been an attempt to address talk page discussion.
I'm not entirely happy that masculine rhyme or cadence actually deserve disambiguation—users seeking information about these would be unlikely to type masculine imo. Masculine ending and feminine ending seem the appropriate place for disambiguation of the relevant ideas. However, the book titles would seem the appropriate default for both the masculine and feminine ending namespaces.
With the simple adjectives (effectively obsolete as substantives), I can imagine (at a stretch) people (maybe second language users) typing these in haste when wanting generic information regarding either gender roles or grammatical gender.
So, although my preference would be for a redirect, I can come at having a redirect, and even extending it so far as to accomodate distinctly different usages.
The example you raise "feminine hygiene", as I'm sure you're aware, is attested as a significant example usage in some dictionaries. It is distinctive in various ways. We agree that a DAB link for it is inappropriate. I suspect our reasons overlap substantially. The main one, in my thinking at least, is that every popular collocation does not constitute a reasonable disambiguation. Masculine jaw gets more than 2.5k google hits, shoulders 1.7k and the more ambiguous masculine features almost 35,000. These are dwarfed by feminine hygiene which gets 1.3 million hits, or even feminine dress at over 50,000.
Now, we could throw scepticism at one another and demand reliable neutral sources and authoritative interpretation of Wiki policy, but I think there is plenty of evidence already on the talk pages of the articles. I'm perfectly happy to admit that sources clearly describe uses of feminine applied to men as being notable and negative, but the point is, the Oxford, I think rightly, still considers these as positive references to womanhood, just negative of a man if applied to him. In fact, I suspect we'd agree, against sources, that in more contemporary English, many traditionally feminine qualities are explicitly attributed in praise of "sensitive new age guys", indeed this is almost already a cliche.
I have more to say that we could discuss. But your approach is forceful, several times now you have reverted me without attempting to pursuade me first. I'm happy for you to draw others of a more collegiate approach to enter the discussion. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] It may not have been meant to be funny...
but "This results in troublesome efforts to achieve pleasant syntax, and it looks ugly, but it is what's done, and the rest of WikiProject Disambiguation will enforce this with a certain mercilessness. This I know from grim experience." (from Talk:Feminine) really cracked me up. I am sorry if you'd have some unfortunate run-ins with editors working in disambiguation pages. I just laughed at the idea of WikiProject Disambiguation editors carrying around baseball bats and harassing people. Thanks for the laugh, even if unintended. :D And thanks for trying to work things out at Feminine and Masculine. -- Natalya 00:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- (reposted from User_talk:Natalya)
- Funny depends on the audience
- I try to be easy-going, but if you look at the history of Masculine and Feminine, the poster has his own way of understanding what "neutral" means, i.e. "normal" and "positive". --But the main issue for the Disambig project there is WP:DICT and a distracting non-dab link (Epicene). He won't let them go. Cheers, Yamara ✉ 01:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- That misrepresents me Yamara. Since you have not attempted to discuss issues, but rather impose your interpretation unilaterally, you don't even know what I think.
- As it turns out, I'd happily drop epicene. You are just plain wrong about WP:DICT, but it's never been an issue.
- The main point is simple, you are simply wrong in your denial of the multiply verified fact that masculine is usually a term of positive reference. That has nothing to do with WP:DICT or epicene. It's a core part of the main meaning of the word being disambiguated based on all RS. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- You have kept restoring epicene, nevertheless. My interpretation was based on your actions over your arguments. WP:DICT I take to mean as not defining antonyms, certainly not on a DAB with a Wiktionary link sitting right next to it.
- I also promised my girlfriend I'd stop arguing on the internet. Cheers, 74.64.122.231 (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ← Me again. Yamara ✉ 17:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Immortality
Your angle on immortality meshes with some quality Christian theology (and some that is not so good). The key search phrase would be teleology. This, of course, is to say absolutely nothing more than you do, but to sound more profound by saying it in Greek.
If you choose to mess with the theological material, the best of it is disappointingly serious unless you share the vision. But if I read you correctly, understanding time is a real passion. You are, in fact, so wrapped in it that you're willing to give a measure of grace even to speculative material, because at least it's talking about the right thing.
I think I've drifted into being more concerned with passions than purposes. Are purposes shaped by passions or by goals? Can goals ever be adequate to describe passions, in the same way they can be mapped to purposes?
Immortality strikes me as the ultimate human engagement with the concept of time.
The Bible makes a teleological statement with which you may be familiar. It is prefaced by, "He made everything beautiful in its time. Also he gave eternity in their hearts." This preface is poetic, the sentences match, parallel in grammatical structure. The objects of the verbs are marked, and moved to the front of the sentences—Everything is made beautiful (in its time) ... Eternity is given (in their hearts). The teleological statement follows.
Immortality is a goal. Hold that thought! Alastair Haines (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have held no doubt about your passion for these subjects, and considered asking for your assistance on Immortality's Christianity section (as per the tag there) while we were distracting over the DABs. For my part, I would welcome your input.
- I'm glad you appreciate my insight as to immortality being a goal. I think we can demonstrate this is not OR, if we are careful and strict about our references. We should therefore let the sources speak their passion, and leave interpretation to cautious and creative editing.
- Just as a comment from a preceding note of yours, I welcome collegiate approaches, but if any encyclopedia exists outside an ivory tower, it's Wikipedia. I'm a realist in this regard, and tend to edit with the expectation that the average person will both expect to understand all non-technical entries, and have her say in them as well. Look forward to seeing you in Talk:Immortality. Cheers, 74.64.122.231 (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC) - Too much RL in between posts. This was me. -Yamara ✉ 17:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
