remove old material |
Vanished user 5zariu3jisj0j4irj (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
I am sorry you think this way. I believe I am following the policy stated in WP:DATE, as writtne--prior or post discussion do not count. When I am editing an article and I find date links that are not needed for the purpose of clarity or content and are not needed for date formatting purposes, I remove them--just as I do with any other unnecessary link. This is following the policy of removing unnecessary links. I am not performing 'automated mass-scale removal'--indeed I do not know how to do such things and don't have the time or interest in just going through articles for the sole purpose of removing such links. Thanks for your concern. [[User:Hmains|Hmains]] 01:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC) |
I am sorry you think this way. I believe I am following the policy stated in WP:DATE, as writtne--prior or post discussion do not count. When I am editing an article and I find date links that are not needed for the purpose of clarity or content and are not needed for date formatting purposes, I remove them--just as I do with any other unnecessary link. This is following the policy of removing unnecessary links. I am not performing 'automated mass-scale removal'--indeed I do not know how to do such things and don't have the time or interest in just going through articles for the sole purpose of removing such links. Thanks for your concern. [[User:Hmains|Hmains]] 01:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC) |
||
:There isn't any judgement happening here as to whether the links are valid. Just as with Bobblewik before you, you're shooting them on sight (as can be seen by the fact that none remain in the articles you hit). So so be it. If you wish to spend all day removing links in violation of that policy, I'll be happy to rollback each and every one - until you get consensus for your edits. [[User:Rebecca|Rebecca]] 01:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:52, 24 June 2006
Welcome
Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:
- Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try Wikipedia:How to edit a page.
- To sign your posts (on talk pages, Votes for deletion page etc.) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes).
- You can experiment in the test area.
- You can get help at the Help Desk
- Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:How to write a great article
Welcome!! --Gurubrahma 19:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Re: Multiracial Americans
On the contrary, the discussion on Category:Multiracial Americans was closed yesterday with a result of delete, which Rick Block did earlier today. I've just re-deleted it under CSD G4, as the category was first deleted according to policy. Please do not re-create it. Thanks, Sango123 (e) 20:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Hmains. I don't recall "writing keep" in any discussion regarding the category, and browsing through my contributions proves that memory hasn't failed me in this case. Could you please point out what you're referring to? Thanks, Sango123 (e) 21:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hello again. First off, I did not vote keep; I merely closed the AfD debate and added {{oldafdfull}} to Talk:Multiracial. Also, the AfD of the article and the CfD of the category were two different discussions; in fact, a user who "voted to delete the category" wanted to keep the article. Since the debates were separate entities, they were closed at different times with different outcomes— one keep, the other delete. Hope this explains things. Thanks, Sango123 (e) 21:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Ethnicity Deletion
Thanks for the warning. I'm against their deletion. I'll warn others. -- Dark Tichondrias
Two accounts
You state on your user page "I also have hmains2 as another wikipedia account. The sole purpose of having two accounts is so I can use one account to read an article while using the other acocunt to edit a different article."
This doesn't require two accounts. You can have multiple pages open at one time with one account. I do that all of the time. I may have two or three different pages open for reference while I am editing one. For that matter you can even be editing more than one page with several open for reference. Doc 14:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- You would have to ask an ADMN to remove the second one, not that it really does any harm as long as you don't use it. If you wish to do that just explain why you had originally created it. Doc 05:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for this late reply
Is it necessary to add a note on their ethnicity in the article? I opt for the lazy way and just add the category :). But I'll think about your suggestion. --Inahet 04:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- I see your point. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. --Inahet 04:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your concern, but it's an important WP goal to ensure that all our content is of a high quality. It would be a crummy encyclopedia indeed if it were impossible to delete articles that fall short of our standards. Would you please tell me, how in your opinion this person meets the criteria set out in WP:BIO? Depending on your answer I may or may not take it to AfD. Note that the dearth of Laotian-Americans with WP articles is not a valid argument for retention here. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Compromise solution: I did a bunch of googling, and it appears that Be Inthavong is not really covered anywhere himself, but there's a large web presense for Be&D, which iis apparently a popular brand. If you agree, I'll move it to Be&D and redo the article to be about the bags. It would also mention Be and the fact that he is Laotian-American, which is essentially all the info we have now, anyway. On your list of L-A people, you would write:
- Be Inthavong, co-founder of Be&D, a notable handbag manufacturer.
- Let me know your thoughts on this. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 12:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Please Do Not Revert My Additions to the Moors Page
The Moops is a valid popular culture reference to the Moors mentioned in an episode of the television show Seinfeld. Please check your facts before you make careless reverts to my edits. 66.129.119.101 13:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Monobook
You may wish to make use of a 'Dates' tab in edit mode that will help with unlinking unnecessary date links. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. It also provides a 'Units' tab. If you know what you are doing, you can copy and modify the subfiles as you wish. I just thought you might be interested. Regards. bobblewik 20:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- The reason it fails is because you refer to User:Hmains/monobook.js/dates.js and User:Hmains/monobook.js/unitformatter.js and these articles do not exist. You have two options:
- Option 1. As described in the first 4 sentences above, make your monobook identical to mine. Then it will use the existing articles User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/dates.js and User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/unitformatter.js.
- Option 2. As described in the last 2 sentences, create your own subfiles User:Hmains/monobook.js/dates.js and User:Hmains/monobook.js/unitformatter.js by copying the details from User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/dates.js and User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/unitformatter.js.
- Try again. I am happy to walk you through the process. So feel free to ask me again. bobblewik 12:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
List of Chinese American
Jiang has been on a crusade to include Taiwanese American on the list. If any further actions such as RfC, RfA, etc should be filed. Please let me know. Thanks--Bonafide.hustla 01:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
IP on WP:AIV
Hi Hmains. I blocked the IP address you listed on WP:AIV. Unfortunately, the IP address you listed is an AOL IP address; AOL IPs can change every few minutes, so it's difficult to tell if blocking one will make any difference. If we block them for a long period of time, it's likely that we will block legitimate editors. Therein lies the difficulty of AOL IPs... ~MDD4696 05:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Ex-Post Conclusion in First Barbary War Article
My name is Joe Potts and I live in Miami - I just haven't established an account yet because I so seldom edit Wikipedia articles. Your point about ex-post conclusion (citation needed) is quite correct in the First Barbary War article. The conclusion is a vestige of the previous version, which attributed such a development of opinion (without citation) to President Jefferson, and in a MUCH more-extreme version (check the History to see for yourself).
I'd be quite happy to delete the entire conclusion, but since I didn't make it (or its predecessor) in the first place and obviously didn't have citations in hand, I thought I'd keep my horns pulled in. Given that I'm not moved to conduct research and ADD knowledge (I consider my contribution here to be the removal of non-knowledge) in this instance (and in that you are a history major and I was not), I'd be interested in your reaction to my changes and, of course, would welcome any further improvements (deletions?) you cared to enter. All my changes are confined to the paragraph in which you entered your comment.
Date links
Can you please refrain from mass-removing any more date links before establishing a consensus that it is, in fact, acceptable to do so? This issue has been debated at length, and if one thing came out of it, it was that a) there is no consensus to be doing anything major on this, and b) that there seemed to be general agreement that automated, mass-scale removal of date links was not acceptable. Please discuss before making any more such edits. Rebecca 01:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry you think this way. I believe I am following the policy stated in WP:DATE, as writtne--prior or post discussion do not count. When I am editing an article and I find date links that are not needed for the purpose of clarity or content and are not needed for date formatting purposes, I remove them--just as I do with any other unnecessary link. This is following the policy of removing unnecessary links. I am not performing 'automated mass-scale removal'--indeed I do not know how to do such things and don't have the time or interest in just going through articles for the sole purpose of removing such links. Thanks for your concern. Hmains 01:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- There isn't any judgement happening here as to whether the links are valid. Just as with Bobblewik before you, you're shooting them on sight (as can be seen by the fact that none remain in the articles you hit). So so be it. If you wish to spend all day removing links in violation of that policy, I'll be happy to rollback each and every one - until you get consensus for your edits. Rebecca 01:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)