Guillaume2303 (talk | contribs) |
→Kindly use common sense: Thanks |
||
Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
re: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Honorverse_characters&action=historysubmit&diff=467061255&oldid=467058833 Taggings] here... This is fictional universe. If you don't like such articles, fine try to nom for deletion. BUT DON'T try to apply cites criteria to a popular fiction or any other socially relevant content in this project. You people waste more time, so please stop it. Use your brain. // <b>[[User:Fabartus|Fra]]</b><font color="green">[[User talk:Fabartus|nkB]]</font> 18:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC) |
re: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Honorverse_characters&action=historysubmit&diff=467061255&oldid=467058833 Taggings] here... This is fictional universe. If you don't like such articles, fine try to nom for deletion. BUT DON'T try to apply cites criteria to a popular fiction or any other socially relevant content in this project. You people waste more time, so please stop it. Use your brain. // <b>[[User:Fabartus|Fra]]</b><font color="green">[[User talk:Fabartus|nkB]]</font> 18:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC) |
||
*Please, try at least to remain [[WP:CIVIL|civil]]. This humongous list has ''not a single reference''. It's absolutely non-encyclopedic. It does not comply with most guidelines and policies. Don't try to use WP as a fansite, move this stuff to the appropriate place: the Honorverse wiki. --[[User:Guillaume2303|Guillaume2303]] ([[User talk:Guillaume2303#top|talk]]) 18:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC) |
*Please, try at least to remain [[WP:CIVIL|civil]]. This humongous list has ''not a single reference''. It's absolutely non-encyclopedic. It does not comply with most guidelines and policies. Don't try to use WP as a fansite, move this stuff to the appropriate place: the Honorverse wiki. --[[User:Guillaume2303|Guillaume2303]] ([[User talk:Guillaume2303#top|talk]]) 18:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC) |
||
** Its not my page, but disagree that any information is unwelcome on WP. Anyone censoring this project need look in a mirror and compare their behavior to the Nazi Party of the '30s. Until we adopt a quorum and minimum vote standard, the key POLICY is IAR... further, in fiction, you have to be AWFULLY STUPID to not be able to follow the links to the articles covering the specific works. They are self-references by definition. Do you really mean to infer that hundreds of editors familiar with said series are going to let errors in the series go unchallenged or unfixed? You people are pissing up a stick unnecessarily. Academic standards are not necessary, nor should they ever be applied. The topic, like a band or entertainer is part of CULTURE... so intrinsically belongs in an information provider's bag of tricks. Heck, I'm no fan of that page either, BUT UNLIKE DELTIONISTS I'm happy to follow our founders lead and let the work output and devotion of contributors stand. On my part, updates to such are an overt attempt by old farts like me to turn kids into readers... A GOOD THING. People that disrespect others contributions are a bad thing. Those tags are nearly always a bad thing. A small unsupervised self-appointed cabal proposes and disposes them, outlasting any opposition in forums nearly no one continues to keep up with, save for the self-appointed ASSHOLES that think they should have things this way or that. We need to introduce such persons to being rode out of town on a rail... after tarring and feathering them. Our forefathers had succinct and clear messaging down pat! Happy Christmas and Merry New Year. // <b>[[User:Fabartus|Fra]]</b><font color="green">[[User talk:Fabartus|nkB]]</font> 20:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:11, 21 December 2011
Hi, and welcome to my User Talk page! For new discussions, I prefer you add your comments at the very bottom and use a section heading (e.g., by using the "+" tab at the top of this page). I will respond on this page unless specifically requested otherwise.
/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Archive 8 /Archive 9 /Archive 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Message on restarted old talk page
Dear Guillaume2303,
I'm writting about the page COMET Project that you proposed to be deleted in November, 24. I'm really sorry that i couldn't contact you earlier.
I would like to know why this article was deleted. I don't think that any copyrighted material was used, neither was any objection about the validity of the article.
I really looking for you reply soon,
Best regards, Chris
Mech5107 (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Moved here by --Shirt58 (talk) 08:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Dear Guillaume2303,
Hi again!
There are a lot of publications about the project, in various online and physical magazines and portals. There are also more than 5 scientific papers presented in conferences about the project results and intermidiate achievements.
I could make you a list and post it either here or sent it to you via any other mean.
Would this be enough to justify that the project deserves to have its own page on Wikipedia?
Best regards, Chris
Mech5107 (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- That participants in the project published scientific articles is nothing out of the ordinary (if they hadn't, now that would be exceptional... :-). I have done projects just by myself that have resulted in many more than just 5 publications, let alone cnference presentations. As people here on WP are wont to say: "publishing is what academics do". Similarly, we don't think that a composer is notable for composing 5 symphonies. He's notable if people have actually listened to them and then written about them (and him). If other people have written scientific articles about COMET, that would be a different matter, but I don't think that is what you meant. As for "online magazines and portals", that would really depend on three things: 1/ that these are not blogs or such but really reliable sources, 2/ that they are truly independent sources, and 3/ that they just don't mention the project in-passing (such as when they are about one of the participants and as an aside it is mentioned "Dr. John Doe is also a member of COMET". If you have sources that comply with these criteria, yes, let's have a look at it. But if they don't comply, let's forget the matter and save everyone's time... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Comedic journalism
I reverted your userfication of Comedic journalism. Unlike many of the other articles from teh same class, a little bit of editing enabled me to preserve it as a non-OR, functional article. Note that I already declined a speedy deletion on the article, and had been conversing with both the student and TA about the article. If you want to delete/userfy it, please take it to AfD. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- While we're at it--did you userfy any other articles that were not under CSD? Userfying articles out of process is a bit worrisome to me. I understand that you were trying to work in the best interest of the program (trying to be less bitey), but I just want to know if there are any others we want to consider editing and bringing back into mainspace. It is, of course, entirely possible that there are none, and the one I saw was an outlier. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, I didn't. I userfied it, because someone deprodded it referring to the ANI discussion. I appreciate the work you did on this one, but I nevertheless think that it has not yet become encyclopedic enough and still is way too essay-like. Having said this, there are now enough people aware of this situation, so I'll leave it up to others to edit it or take to AfD (I only stumbled upon it during new page patrol and am not really interested in journalism, comedic or otherwise). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Adding MAKE to the literary journals page
Guillaume2303, I noticed you removed my entry onto the literary journals page. Wondering why, we are an existing journal online (http://makemag.com/reviews-online/) and in print. Established authors such as Tomaž Šalamun, James Tate, etc have published with us..?
Let me know if we can't remain up there somehow, would like to be included in that company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgmolloy (talk • contribs) 17:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds like you have a conflict of interest here. If the magazine meets our inclusion guidelines, an article can be created. Once that has been done, it can be added to the list. However, you should only create an article if you know WPs policies and guidelines very well, because otherwise the article might wind up deleted. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Corrections to Archivaria Page
The Australian Research Council did not use a plus sign in their materials (A+), they used an asterisk * (A*), which is what I used. Should you be altering their system? Archivisticus (talk) 06:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- A typo, sorry. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
More on Archivaria
Thanks! A speedy reply. Another question: I had taken the editor out because I wasn't sure I would remember to keep up with the fairly frequent turnover. Should I assume that I need to be responsible for keeping this part up to date?Archivisticus (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- We usually list the EIC (or whatever job title is used for the "head honcho") in articles on journals. According to WP:PROF, such people are notable and should have a bio here. Updating info that often changes is indeed a concern (we also list impact factors, and they change every year), but that is unavoidable. Updating is nobody's responsibility, unless someone takes this up voluntarily. One solution is to use a template: {{As of|2007}} John Doe is [[editor-in-chief]]. This will produce a "hidden category" (articles with potentially outdated statements) that may alert other editors that the info should be checked from time to time. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Content of Archivaria
I just wanted to say that you'll see from the original version I posted of Archivaria to the version you changed that I had added a bunch of stuff. Quite a bit came from the Association (the promotional stuff) after they read my first go round that I tried to keep out as much as possible but obviously didn't succeed entirely. The extra content about the prizes (what ACA calls the awards)came because I was a bit worried when I read the content for the American Archivist that it is considered a "stub." But since Archivaria hasn't been listed as a stub I'm assuming that's okay. Also, I saw a list of editors on one of the other learned journals which is why I added a link to the ACA's website page that lists them. I figured that could take the place of the editor in the box. But I guess one can't necessarily count on the Association's website being up to date either. But don't you think it could be useful? Knowing who the editors are can tell you a lot about what the journal looked like over the years. And I did have one other question. You've changed the subtitle of the notice about the A* rating by the Australian Research Council to "indexing." But their rating system isn't an indexer. There is no content indexed. Any thoughts?Archivisticus (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, that's a lot of different points. In order:
- Stub: ranking something as a stub is not disparaging. It just indicates the state of the article and whether it is reasonably complete or not. Most journal articles are Stubs or Start-class.
- Editors: if it can be sourced, it's perfectly acceptable to list previous editors-in-chief. They are indeed the people who determined the editorial policies and directions of the journal over the years. However, as an aside, we don't list subordinate editors (whether managing, section, or associate editor) or editorial board members (unless in very exceptional cases where there are reliable sources outlining what these people did for/to the journal).
- Indexing: I did this kind of out of habit, I'm afraid. Usually, we include ranking info at the end of a section called "abstracting and indexing", which first contains a list of the (selective) major databases that index a journal (so not Google Scholar, for example, as that is rather trivial). My preferred solution would be to do that here, too, but I haven't found any abstracting/indexing info for this journal. In the absence of that, we could name the section "ranking".
- Australian ratings: I'm not a great admirer of including those ratings in journal articles, but must admit being in the minority here. So I never add these rankings to articles, but I don't remove them if they are present. As far as I know, the Aussies have (wisely, I think) abandoned the ratings in the latest version of their evaluation exercise. Fortunately, not too many other countries have done similar things, imagine the maintenance we would have to do with all journal articles to keep ratings given by several different countries updated...
- Hope this helps. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Gerald Fischbach Article
Hi
Im sorry I changed your Web of Science reference, but our GA reviewer said:
Ref #22. Please find a new source. It is invalid to cite another wikipedia page as a reference. It is okay to use internal links or to make footnotes that link to another Wikipedia article, but do not cite it as a source reference.
So I'm unsure of what to do now. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Kierak33 (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I see what you mean. I'll change the reference to make the reviewer happy, it was not a reference to a WP page... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your note to the GA reviewer. Kierak33 (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
for your comments at User talk:Ggg phew. There's no getting through to that guy. Toddst1 (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, doesn't seem like this is someone willing to listen to reason (I had run-ins elsewhere, too), but I thought I'd give it a last-ditch try. My bet is he'll be back under another name soon... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Kindly use common sense
re: Taggings here... This is fictional universe. If you don't like such articles, fine try to nom for deletion. BUT DON'T try to apply cites criteria to a popular fiction or any other socially relevant content in this project. You people waste more time, so please stop it. Use your brain. // FrankB 18:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Please, try at least to remain civil. This humongous list has not a single reference. It's absolutely non-encyclopedic. It does not comply with most guidelines and policies. Don't try to use WP as a fansite, move this stuff to the appropriate place: the Honorverse wiki. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Its not my page, but disagree that any information is unwelcome on WP. Anyone censoring this project need look in a mirror and compare their behavior to the Nazi Party of the '30s. Until we adopt a quorum and minimum vote standard, the key POLICY is IAR... further, in fiction, you have to be AWFULLY STUPID to not be able to follow the links to the articles covering the specific works. They are self-references by definition. Do you really mean to infer that hundreds of editors familiar with said series are going to let errors in the series go unchallenged or unfixed? You people are pissing up a stick unnecessarily. Academic standards are not necessary, nor should they ever be applied. The topic, like a band or entertainer is part of CULTURE... so intrinsically belongs in an information provider's bag of tricks. Heck, I'm no fan of that page either, BUT UNLIKE DELTIONISTS I'm happy to follow our founders lead and let the work output and devotion of contributors stand. On my part, updates to such are an overt attempt by old farts like me to turn kids into readers... A GOOD THING. People that disrespect others contributions are a bad thing. Those tags are nearly always a bad thing. A small unsupervised self-appointed cabal proposes and disposes them, outlasting any opposition in forums nearly no one continues to keep up with, save for the self-appointed ASSHOLES that think they should have things this way or that. We need to introduce such persons to being rode out of town on a rail... after tarring and feathering them. Our forefathers had succinct and clear messaging down pat! Happy Christmas and Merry New Year. // FrankB 20:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)