User talk:Ac44ck
Welcome!
Hello, Ac44ck, and
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}}
before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Safeguards against "trolling for fun"
{{helpme}}
One of the pages of interest to me, J. Vernon McGee, was made a target of what looks like trolling for fun.
An editor made the comment "Tagging is fun, I know" on Talk:Barry_Cohen_(attorney).
Their "contribution" history here Special:Contributions/Mattisse suggests that they indulge quite a bit in this kind of "fun".
I have asked for clarification here: Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view
But the amount of tagging activity that I see on that editor's "contribution" page seems excessive. And I suspect that it isn't the only case of such.
It occurs to me that it is _vandalism_ under the guise of "policy enforcement".
Is there a mechanism to curb this kind of "fun"? --Ac44ck 19:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sandbox) 21:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)]
- Reply:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AGF
- Bad faith editing can include ... playing games with policies
- Tagging scores of pages and noting that "Tagging is fun" would seem to be suggestive of "playing games with policies". Making one's first appearance on a page with a declaration akin to "I don't like what is here, but I'm not saying what would satisfy me. Oh, and someone else fix it." doesn't strike me as being particularly helpful. There's a saying that I like: "To criticize is to volunteer."
- There are also these:
- The article in question seems to fit most of the policy for self-published sources (negating that the "self" in question died nearly two decades ago) except "the article is not based primarily on such sources."
- The article obviously could use improvement. That someone pointed it out is understandable. That no commitment to help accompanies a criticism (even to the extent of identifying one specific -- and significant -- item which might have planted the idea for tagging the article) makes it seem less "constructive".
- Assuming that the tagger acted in good faith is what can make "trolling" so effective. Someone on a tagging spree for "fun" can create a lot of activity in their wake -- which is the goal of trolling. Finding evidence which suggests that the tagger was trolling seems like a violation of my assumption of good faith.
- --Ac44ck 21:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- You can take it over to radio me!Editor review) 23:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)]
- You can take it over to
I posted twice on the article page as you requested I do
- Hi! If you are talking about J. Vernon McGee, I did post it on the article page (as you requested) [1] where you requested I do so. Here:[2][3]
- Here are the diffs. Mattisse 01:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's get a mediator
It is not your article and your opinion is not the only one. Anyone can add or subtract from it. Only unsourced material cannot be removed, unless you have a better source. Just because someone disagrees with you, does not mean they are wrong. Also, you are not supposed to remove a tag without fixing the problem. Why don't we get a third party opinion? Let's do that or get an informal mediator. How about it? Mattisse 02:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Time tracking
It does take up time, I know. I spent all day yesterday trying to find information on Barry Cohen who I know is a very notable, if not famous in his field, attorney. However, I could find hardly anything. I even went to the library today. Fortunately, another editor cleaned the article up, took out a lot of stuff that should not have been there in the first place, and the article is much better now. That other editor had a clearer perspective than I did.
I truly apologize for upsetting you. But tags are not a problem. If someone were trying to delete it, now that would be a problem. Many stellar articles on Wikipedia have tags on them. And, as I said to you somewhere else, I tag my own articles rather often. Sincerely, Mattisse 03:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I see issues to be addressed in the article
I feel that the tag issue needs to be addressed. You seem to feel that because you "see nothing specific to be addressed", that means I am not allowed to address issues in the article that I see. You are acting as if you
Psychrometrics
If you have a question regarding the information in the article, plase address it on the Discussion page. Kilmer-san (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Help: versus Help talk: versus WP:Help Desk
Howdy,
Help:Show preview is part of the documentation for the mediawiki software, especially for wikipedia. Your question was signed, and appeared to be asking for help. Some people do this on Help talk:Show preview, though that page is theoretically for discussing how to improve Help:Show preview. One of your comments seemed to indicate you thought Help:Show preview was a talk page, but the talk page is Help talk:Show preview.
For actually getting help using wikipedia, the standard place is the
If you want to get a feature added to the mediawiki software, then the
Personally, I think my workaround is barely useful, so I didn't add it to the help page. If you figured out a way to phrase it to be helpful, then consider editing Help:Show preview (as a piece of documentation). If you think you've *really* got a good solution, then actually put it at m:Help:Show preview (the "master copy"). If you just think someone should, then you can suggest it at Help talk:Show preview, but there are not enough help page writers to ensure it will get done in a timely fashion.
I tend to use {{
Since the edit summary is awfully short: my work-around is just to add a <references/> tag to the bottom of the section you are editing right before you preview, and remove it right before you save. One could write some javascript to do this, but I think it is probably a little too fragile: people would be adding extra references tags willy-nilly. This is true whether or not some program is handling it, so I think my idea is pretty poor.
At any rate, hopefully this clears up the "misplaced" part -- help page is for answers, not questions, but feel free to ask on Help talk:Show preview, WP:Help desk, or WP:Village pump (technical), or write up your nice answer on Help:Show preview. JackSchmidt (talk) 02:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- I changed it to an observation. Maybe I'll try to write up the work-around later. For now, others who are similarly puzzled by the omission in the behavior of "show preview" will know that they are not alone in wondering why their new references don't appear in the preview.
- > One of your comments seemed to indicate you thought Help:Show preview was a talk page, but the talk page is Help talk:Show preview.
- Indeed. I'm not sure how the question ended up on the "help" page instead of the "talk" page.
Tropical rock
- In these move requests:
- Tropical rockk → Trop rock — encountered name conflict while trying to make article name more complete and swap with redirect — Ac44ck (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Trop Rock → Tropical rock — encountered name conflict while trying to make article name more complete and swap with redirect — Ac44ck (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)]
- I have moved the text to Tropical rock; the other pages and Tropical rock - to be swapped with Trop Rock proved to be merely redirects. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for unraveling the effort to swap the Trop Rock and Tropical rock article names. I don't know why it resulted in a name-space conflict. I thought the name would be available after I renamed the article to a temporary name, but the system didn't seem to release the name as I expected it to. It's okay now. I'll try to nominate the two temporary pages that I made for deletion. - Ac44ck (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)]
- Thanks for unraveling the effort to swap the
Redirects
When you nominate redirects for deletion, please use
- Actually, I think those redirects might meet ]
I fixed it
Hi, Ac44ck. I know what you were trying to do - create a temporary holding place and swap them - but wikipedia automatically retains the old article title as a redirect.
If you want to move over a redirect, which is what it's known as, you can go to
Anyway, I've fixed it. Thanks for helping wikipedia, and I trust that you'll continue to contribute. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Don't worry. I'm a computer programmer too, and so I saw straight away what you were trying to do, and that it was in good faith. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Article moved to WP namespace
{{helpme}}
Is the Bible citation article in danger of being deleted?
The Bible citation was moved to the WP namespace without prior discussion. A 'proposed' tag was added about the same time. I removed the tag because I wasn't aware that the article was (or was being) moved to a different namespace.
I read here
that:
- A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus for acceptance is not present after a reasonable time period, for which consensus is unclear after a reasonable time period for discussion regardless of whether there is active discussion or not, or where discussion has substantially died out without reaching consensus.
The editor who moved the page didn't add any comments to the article's discussion page. Their discussion on the issue here
hasn't been especially engaging.
My expectation is that there will be little, if any, discussion about the "proposal" and the page might be deleted for "lack of interest".
Shouldn't a page be moved to the WP namespace only _after_ has been adopted as a guideline, etc.?
What to do now?
Thanks. - Ac44ck (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- First of all it's not an article. Second of all, I would probably userfy it (User:whichever user made it/Bible citation) until it's adopted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- It _was_ an article before it was moved. It isn't an article _now_. And now it may exist in a realm of rules that I am unaware of. What are the consequences of the content being moved to a different namespace? -Ac44ck (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Weird. If you don't think it belongs in Wikipedia space, you can take it to WP:MFD. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)]
- Anything that begins with "Wikipedia:" should go to MFD as it's in project space, not article space. I was just a little confused because it was off on its own and not in article space or something. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Weird. If you don't think it belongs in Wikipedia space, you can take it to
- It _was_ an article before it was moved. It isn't an article _now_. And now it may exist in a realm of rules that I am unaware of. What are the consequences of the content being moved to a different namespace? -Ac44ck (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
NowCommons: File:Vector-valued function-2.png
Thanks!
You know... that helped a lot with that simple external link. ... length, mass, time, electric current, temperature, amount of substance, luminous intensity. All things I've "known" about but never cared to include (all) when analyzing a substance. I know I'm coming off as a moron, but please... Someone uneducated must learn everything for the first time, and you have just opened my eyes. Thanks a million. Robert M Johnson (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Avocado's Number = # of molecules in guaca-MOLE
Hey - just wanted to say thanks for the nice solution re: anachronistically! Luminifer (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
{{
]{{
]