User talk:Lypheklub

You have done a good job so far in

Just keep in mind that while relevant discussions and constructive criticisms and are welcome, unproductive and/or destructive insults are not (see Wikiquette).

Who knows? Perhaps you'll soon become a

Hey there, your information on Boontling now has it's own article, but it could stand to be fleshed out a bit. Care to add in some history on it? It's certainly caught my interest! --Dante Alighieri 08:55, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Dante, I don't know a whole lot about it right now. I just visited Boonville, and I am reading a book about it now. When I finish the book, I'll add more. A quick Google search for "boontling" gave me the the terms for the Boontling Primer. A little more Googling could probably make for a really good wiki if you want to help me unstubify it. Lypheklub 09:00, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Tillwe, the "show preview" button can become a valuable tool for working on an article. No need to stress the server my constantly saving the page if you are making many small edits. Lypheklub 19:07, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your hint on the "Show preview" button. Yes, I use it, but there are three reasons there still are so many versions of the Greens issue list. One is, that I wanted to save the major versions, because I didn't want to lose data by a possible computer-crash, and I didn't want to go into messy (much of editing) possible edit conflicts. The next reason is the "section edit" feature, which in a way hides the many edits, and makes two separate edits necessary if one edits one sections, sees then the need for an edit of the next sections and so on. The third reason is the incremental way I generated that list: doing a start version, looking for more greens-related issues by following "What links here", adding that to the list, creating a new list -- and then saving before starting that cycle a new. I see that there is no need for twenty or whatevers saves, but on the other hand I think starting a new, complicated (in the sense of interconnectedness) article is a special situation. -- till we *) 22:28, Aug 23, 2003 (UTC)

[1] shows that "nut graph" and "billboard" aren't so obscure and that feature writing basics have a Googlable presence on the Web. But [2] and [3] and other searches I've tried suggest strongly to me that "micro leads" get much less mention by all the people posting about feature writing. I've taken a journalism class myself, and if I ever heard the term it can't have been more than once. I believe you that you heard it at your school, but what evidence do you have to say it's common?

"Blade of grass theory" isn't too obscure at all, to my mind, it's I just thought the term took more from the paragraph than it gave. I thought the concept was good to mention, but you must know that it's new style to leave out new vocabulary when you can. "Blade of grass theory" is not nearly so fundamental as "billboard," plus I think "billboard" succinctly helps to make a point--adds more than it takes away from the pace.

Right now the article gives just a sketch of what a feature is and exists mostly to distinguish features from straight news. It's not a how-to, but if it were to expand in that direction, I wouldn't have any problem with "blade of grass"...although I'd try to invoke it without "theory." 168... 05:33, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

168, I see your point. Plus, unlike the

feature style article. Maybe that could go more into the finer points of writing features. Lypheklub

17:27, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi...I know the Wikipediholics page isn't meant to be taken seriously, but will you please stop changing "Wikipedihol"? I meant to write that, it's not a mistake. It's sort of a reference to a Simpsons joke, if that helps... Adam Bishop 06:21, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

By Wikipedihol I mean the stuff Wikipediholics are addicted to :) A combination of Wikipedia and alcohol. I don't know about other people, but when I think of that I think of the Simpsons episode when Homer says he is addicted to rageahol, instead of just saying rage. Adam Bishop 06:24, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Got you. I'm such an ardent Wikipediholic that I copyedit everything I see even if it is intentional. Lypheklub 06:26, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Haha, that's good, after all they do say we should "be bold" in editing :) Welcome to the Wikipedia, by the way! Adam Bishop 06:28, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Excellent work on

It's from a book Joel Whitburn's Top Pop Albums 1955-1996 (I found the reference through Google). I am still wondering about making a separate page for platinum albums though Lypheklub 00:50, Aug 31, 2003 (UTC)

I think separate pages is the way to go. I intended that the redirect from

Platinum album should be temporary. But it's not obvious to me how to split the content. I put a redirect in so there was something informative both to read and to link to until either I got my thoughts together or someone else showed me how. Andrewa

01:23, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That might be tricky now, because I just refered by

RIAA Certification for both Platinum AND Gold we could evade this problem. Ideas? Lypheklub

01:35, Aug 31, 2003 (UTC)

Good move on adding the link back to Talk:List of heterosexuals. I got sidetracked dealing with a bit of vandalism and by the time I went back to the above page you had already added it in. The lets talk about it on the talk page is one of the oldest tricks I have seen on wiki. Pages have ended up on the VfD page for weeks, on occasions before we reorganised the dates months, while everyone waited for a decision on the talk page and the chat there ended up meandering all over the place before dying of boredom. I am completely oppossed to the talk page route for that reason; it is simply a stalling mechanism. If we need to go off the VfD, we should go to a special delete debate page that has a definitive timeframe for reaching a conclusion. So we need to keep the decision focused on the VfD page and the week timeframe. (The other technique some use is to move the debate to the talk page, then delete any mention of the VfD nomination from the VfD and hey presto, everyone forgets that it has been nominated. The tricks some people use to stop their beloved pages being deleted, eh! :-) ) lol FearÉIREANN 21:24, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I took care of this. It will all take place on Talk:List of heterosexuals/deletion from now on. The timeframe is one week.

Excellent decision. Martin won't be happy through. It'll complicate his save our page strategy! FearÉIREANN 21:35, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

As long as we preserve our one week timeframe, there shouldn't be a problem in deleting this old page finally. Lypheklub 21:38, Aug 31, 2003 (UTC)

I'd suggest the deletion page be archived when the time comes on the VfD page. Good work. FearÉIREANN 21:41, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

We'll figure all that out in a week, when the page finally goes to the disposal. We'll probably just shift the whole discussion over to VfD. Martin is already trying to split hairs. Is the vote a majority? Plurality? I'd say simple plurality. This is Wikipedia, not the Senate! Maybe we should set that straight. Lypheklub 21:46, Aug 31, 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed your articles on Boonville and Boontling and was wondering where you are from. I reside in Ukiah, the county seat for all of Mendocino County, including Boonville. Drop a note on my talk page if its not too much trouble. Thanks.

DryGrain 17:27, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I've

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the