MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 7d) to User talk:Floquenbeam/Archive 3. |
Hamiltonstone (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
Thanks for your attention. I accept your proposal [[User talk:Gkrellm|here]]. I think that topic ban on anything Linux-related is harsh, as in quantum chemistry area there is a lot of important Linux-based sowtware. So I hope to review this ban as soon as possible. [[User:Gkrellm|Gkrellm]] ([[User talk:Gkrellm|talk]]) 10:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC) |
Thanks for your attention. I accept your proposal [[User talk:Gkrellm|here]]. I think that topic ban on anything Linux-related is harsh, as in quantum chemistry area there is a lot of important Linux-based sowtware. So I hope to review this ban as soon as possible. [[User:Gkrellm|Gkrellm]] ([[User talk:Gkrellm|talk]]) 10:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Urgent - please revert your change to [[Ben Gascoigne]] main page lead as I cannot == |
|||
Writing about Ben Gascoigne and not mentioning Rosalie is like writing about Carla Bruni and not mentioning Nicholas Sarkosy. She is more famous than him by a country mile, AND he was involved in her art during retirement. Feel free to remove "famous" but PLEASE do not omit! |
Revision as of 23:19, 2 December 2010
|
thank you
RE: User_talk:Thepulse2007#November_2010 It is my first subtle vandal I have ever run into, and it really made me shocked at the kind of damage editors can do undetected. Adamtheclown (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ouch. Well, one down... Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 00:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- As I was spending a significant time examining this editors vandalism, I wondered who he was. I suspect he is some nerdy teenage boy who has extreme problems fitting in socially. I just don't understand what satisfaction anyone would have in spending hours undermining articles with worthless edits. Was it all a meaningless, empty, pathetic game, beating themselves how long until they could get caught? I wonder if there have been any studies on wikipedia vandals, lord knows there have been studies on everything else about wikipedia. Adamtheclown (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's the way I tend to look at it: childish, naïve behavior. It makes me wonder whether they have nothing else to do (but then again, same goes for any Wikipediholic). I would really love to see their scores on the Crazy test. Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 00:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- As I was spending a significant time examining this editors vandalism, I wondered who he was. I suspect he is some nerdy teenage boy who has extreme problems fitting in socially. I just don't understand what satisfaction anyone would have in spending hours undermining articles with worthless edits. Was it all a meaningless, empty, pathetic game, beating themselves how long until they could get caught? I wonder if there have been any studies on wikipedia vandals, lord knows there have been studies on everything else about wikipedia. Adamtheclown (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Yes, this kind of vandalism is hard to understand. The "Mr. Sampson's 5th grade class iz teh gay" type vandalism is easy to understand: bored schoolkids with time to kill and an adolescent sense of humor. Who knows, I might have done that at their age and thought it was hilarious too. But the long term, determined, unfunny, under-the-radar vandalism, I don't get. I think there's a page in Wikipedia space that talked about vandalism motivations, I may try to hunt it down if I have time. If I find it I'll let you know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- thank you, I would be interested in this article. When we understand why these idiots do this, we can take more effective steps to prevent this vandalism. Adamtheclown (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- The page I was thinking of (an essay) is Wikipedia:The motivation of a vandal. You might be interested in poking around in Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies, although at a quick glance it looks to have become inactive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject_Vandalism_studies#Studies_of_vandalism_on_Wikipedia_by_others
- As I suspected, lots of studies. thank you sir. have a rewarding weekend. Adamtheclown (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- The page I was thinking of (an essay) is Wikipedia:The motivation of a vandal. You might be interested in poking around in Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies, although at a quick glance it looks to have become inactive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- thank you, I would be interested in this article. When we understand why these idiots do this, we can take more effective steps to prevent this vandalism. Adamtheclown (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
how do I become a power user of footnotes and references?
Pretty used to using endnotes for referencing in MS word and following various academic formats. But the Wiki system with citation templates seems awkward. I may not be doing it right though. Just want to learn to be slick in creation, and efficient in time spent. Thoughts? Is there a guru?TCO (talk)
- You should sign your posts (I'm not stalking you, you've posted to several pages I have watchlisted). There is no requirement that templates be used, in fact some ardently oppose them (you might want to talk to User:SlimVirgin on that score). Keep an eye on how it is done in various FA's of recent promotion and find a way that you like, and copy it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Further to that, if you go to "My preferences", "Gadgets" and check the "refTools" box, a "cite" button will be added to your editing window which does a lot of the hard work for you; click it and a form pops up, which outputs into the appropriate citation fields. – iridescent 11:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I just forgot to sign, put up an undated one now. Hmm...I kinda get her point. Well, haven't heard her logic, but they do clog up the pages. Actually having them in the text section clogs up the page in edit mode (MSFT Word is much better there, or even just typing). What Iridescent mentioned is what I'm looking for. Although, maybe just learning a particular format and then applying it would be quickest. I'm used to different journals having different format in terms of what fields come in what order and bolding and commas and all that. But if I just pick one and use it maybe that would be the power way. Just did a bunch of cite templates on an article and it was slow. Hmmm...TCO (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- SlimVirgin's claim is that it makes pages load more slowly, which has been disputed.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- TCO, my dirty little secret is that I'm an admin, but not a content producer; more a content consumer, and on good days, a gnome (well, a gnome with a block button). About as far from a "power user of footnotes and references" as you can get. So you've pretty much come to the wrong place for advice on that score - and it would be silly for me to give you referencing advice after Wehwalt and iridescent (who actually do create quality content) have already done so.
But since you asked, I'll do it anyway. Personally, I don't like cite templates or any other kind of reference information in the middle of the actual article. I like it when they are defined in a Bibliography section, using whatever method you like. Then, inline with the actual text of the article, just a simple <ref>Smith, p.123</ref>, so it is actually readable in the edit window.
But there are a bunch of other ways, all with advantages and disadvantages. As Wehwalt says, look over a bunch of recent FA's, find one that fits your style, and use that. I've my own preference as an article reader, but I'm sure others feel differently, so that isn't a final answer either. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, man. I'm going to try to use Wehwalt as my "can't figure it out" source for content and editing mechanics questions. (Maybe use you as my policy source, semi-retired or not.) I have and will rampage around a lot asking questions, too. And I did/do try reading what is written as well, but still sometimes need to ask, hard to find the answer by searches. Gotten some good help lately on the talk page for Citation templates. Pretty much, most people willing to help me, although one big content creator gave me a "hint" to go learn on another page, so I pulled him off my watchlist, no biggie.
I am evolving my thinking rapidly. Used the templates a bunch, but am kinda wondering if it would be faster (and take less space) to just figure out a style,memorize it (like if it has periods or commas or the like) and then apply it manually. I also agree with you on the referencing in the middle of a page. It's a mess. MS Word is much nicer, very easy to use inline citations that become endnotes.
TCO (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
getting my old talk page content back
I want to either clean my page up, to eliminate the warnings at the top or just add all the content that used to be there (for reference and all.) Actually the latter would be my preference. I can still keep the warnings, I don't mind and probably good just as data, but they would be inline and chronological. (Note: There were just a select few edits where I was using the talk page to be incivil, while banned, which naturally resulted in a talkpage ban, would cut those, but I want to get the bulk of my content back).
1. Is that cool?
2. Mechanically, I would just do some restoring and cut and paste editing, I guess. Any other advice on how to do?
TCO (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi TCO, you are welcome to re-add all the content that used to be there, using cut and paste. I agree that re-adding the naughty bits would be a bad idea. As Wehwalt suggests on your talk page, you can also create an archive to cut the length down a bit, and get rid of things that are resolved. You've got a lot of leeway on how you manage your talk page, as long as it doesn't look like you're misrepresenting the past. My own advice (since you asked) would be to restore the entire thing, block notices and all; copy-paste it all to a talk page archive; then remove anything you don't need/want on your talk page, including the block notices if you want to. I can help with the archiving if needed, as long as you're ok with it happening in slow motion; my editing is likely to become increasingly restricted until after the new year. If you want to do something sooner and need help, try the {{helpme}} template on your talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ooops, never mind the archiving comments, just saw your comments on your talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
removing category temporary wikipedians
Will you please remove that from my talkpage, or show me how to do it? (Does not display when I try to edit the page.)TCO (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 November 2010
- In the news: Fundraising banners continue to provoke; plagiarism charges against congressional climate change report
- WikiProject report: Celebrate WikiProject Holidays
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Election report: Voting in full swing
- Arbitration report: New case: Longevity; Biophys topic ban likely to stay in place
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
acception of standart offer by banned user
Thanks for your attention. I accept your proposal here. I think that topic ban on anything Linux-related is harsh, as in quantum chemistry area there is a lot of important Linux-based sowtware. So I hope to review this ban as soon as possible. Gkrellm (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Urgent - please revert your change to Ben Gascoigne main page lead as I cannot
Writing about Ben Gascoigne and not mentioning Rosalie is like writing about Carla Bruni and not mentioning Nicholas Sarkosy. She is more famous than him by a country mile, AND he was involved in her art during retirement. Feel free to remove "famous" but PLEASE do not omit!