User talk:Tug201

Welcome! Hello, Tug201, 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

Hi, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, and I have a question about categories. You recently removed some categories from Windsurfing harness with too many cats in the edit summary. Could you please explain why having this article belong to several relevant categories is a bad thing? I was under the impression that adding articles to relevant categories would help them to be improved. Tug201 15:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll review my changes so I can clarify them to you: You added the categories Category:Windsurfing, Category:Water sports and Category:Boardsports to this article. These are all relevant. However, as it is a windsurfing harness, it is something that belongs to windsurfing. The windsurfing category is a member of the category boardsports and of watersports. Categories can both contain articles, or other categories as subcategories. In most cases, if something is classed under a subcategory, it is not also listed under it's parent category, as it would be excessive, as well as inappropriate. Listing it in this way helps establish a tree format of editing. While listing something in as many categories as possible would seem appealing, it crowds categories, and people looking to edit things in a certain category, say, boardsports, would find windsurfing harness which only applies to the specific boardsport of windsurfing, and not any other boardsport. Someone more likely to contribute to the article will have accessed the windsurfing category listed at the top of the boardsports and watersports categories. Tyciol 12:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh!  :$ Thanks for explaining that to me, mate.  :) Sorry for the fuss. - Malkinann 12:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been expanding the Geology and Geography and Tourism sections at Great Barrier Reef of late - can you please have a look at them? Also, I've found a really comprehensive reference for species, but every time I look at it, it blows my mind. [1] Do you have any suggestions for how we could use this reference appropriately? Thanks heaps for all of your work on GBR to date. - Malkinann 07:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tug201, I noticed that you like to delete work that I have been thinking hours to create something beautiful. It is very easy to just delete. By deleteing you are denying other people valuable information. If you don't like what is written I challenge you to write your own. The very first version of the topic of dignity inspired me to improve it, to find material and write myself, but your "contributions" decrease my desire to participate at all. Evil is easy. Goodness is hard. Try to do something good! At least save the link to the article of dignity, which the text was initially taken, otherwise it is plagiarism. Or, just delete it all, you may like it. Abuhar 16:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought twice about honoring this criticism with a reply. I refer you to the above discussion on your talk page. Sure it may have taken hours for you to create, but it could have taken months or years and still not be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia such as this one. Not to mention that despite citing its source, the text that was removed plagiarized by using statements that were simply copied and pasted from this source. Just by citing a source you are not safe from plagiarism! By removing the text I was opening up the opportunity for others to replace it with something more comprehensive. It is clear from your comment that you do not maintain a neutral point of view on your so called 'beautiful' work. Please spare a thought to the fact that your contributions may also decrease the desire of others to participate, and your comments have discouraged me from participating in this farce altogether. For this I offer you my congratulations. I noticed that shortly after posting the above comment you decided to check with others whether you were "right or wrong". Perhaps work on getting your facts right before criticizing others. Tug201 07:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tug201, I appreciate your reply. I wish we had found a way to discuss this issue in the special area for that: "discussion" of article "dignity" before the incident happened, as it is adviced by the wikipedia rules. But better late than never. As I am a recently wikipedia contributor I accept that I need to learn a lot of "editing" and "citing" stuff. I wish you taught me or showed a better example on how to improve the content of the article instead of a silent deletion. Anyway, I still work on the article and now it looks a bit different than the original article. However, I still need to know how to avoid the issue of "plagiarism" (if it takes place) AND still leave the main idea same or better. You might have advice on how to do so. I would like you to help me. I really appreciate your response and I would like to apologise for hurting your feelings. Abuhar 19:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current