User talk:20-dude/My Archive

March 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for reverting your recent experiment with the page Template:WikiProject. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. In the future, please do not experiment on article pages; instead, use the sandbox. Thank you. Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I'm actually a returning "semi-retired" long time member... despite so, I don't get the sandbox. What does it mean when they tell you use the sandbox? Am I supposed to experiment in the article titled "Sandbox" or is sandbox a therm for "/subarticles" in talk pages (like the one I just created in my user talk page). What's a sandbox and how do I use it?

hahaha thanks beforehand.

--20-dude (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for asking! There are basically two kinds of sandboxes. There is the general sandbox at Wikipedia:Sandbox, such as I directed you to in the message above. Then there are personal sandboxes such as you have created, however, they're usually created in the user space not the usertalk space so that your sandbox would normally be at User:20-dude/Sandbox or User:20-dude/My sandbox. This is simple to fix though, go to the one you created and it will say that it's a discussion page, just click on the tab at the top that says "Userpage" and put everything there - not that it really matters much in userspace. The advantage of a personal sandbox is that you don't have to worry about putting work there and having someone else come along and put their own work right over it, or having a Bot wipe the sandbox clean, as they do with Wikipedia:Sandbox from time to time. For more information see Wikipedia:User_page#How_do_I_create_a_user_subpage.3F. Also, you may want to place {{userpage}} at the top of your userpages and {{usersandbox}} at the top of your sandbox(es). Let me know if you have more questions.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Wikipedia:WikiProject:Please erase if the only content is "I'm done"

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Wikipedia:WikiProject:Please erase if the only content is "I'm done"|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi again

...While I'm here... I have a million dollars question. I'm the main bureaucrat a private but publically open, editable wiki-site. It is like wikipedia, but focused on trivia and details of pop-culture, that Wikipedia usually doesn't like to cover. From broad cultural topics (meaning human production and lifestyle) to detailed stuff like, for instance, McDonals merchandise, action figures, tv episodes, sport games, related merchandise, and so on... The page is already "googable", would you say it'b be right to place in an appropiated, tasteful, moderated and carefully selected manner links to my most selected, complete, verifiable, sourced articles in their Wikipedia counterparts?? (specially if the contents contrast, and complement each other).

I mean, how did IMDB, allmovie, allmusic, tv.com and the rest did it at first? What would you or your peers look at the situation? Maybe I should ask for supervision at each wikipedia article's talk pages once I place a link so that if the editors don't like it much they can erase it. Should I mention I'm the bureachat wvery time I place a link.

Wow, my head hurts, is there an established procedure or something? If you don't know, do you know somebody who knows?? thanks beforehand.

--20-dude (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I wouldn't like to link that many articles, since I'm my worst critic and only few articles (like 10 or so) satisfy me enough to show them here.--20-dude (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Was it a tough question?--20-dude (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Based on my experience as an active participant in Miscellany for Deletion and other deletion discussions, I'd say that this is generally not appropriate. If you are an active contributor and you have other information on your userpage that can be seen as helpful to this project, then it might be ok to mention your experience on other sites very briefly and maybe leave a link, but only on your userpage. Based on your current number of edits, I wouldn't recommend it. It would probably be seen as spam. I would never link to such a site on an article. By the way, I don't consider IMDb to be a reliable site and I wouldn't link to it anywhere, though I know others would. Basically, any site that can be edited by members of the general public (even if you have to join), is unreliable in my mind (which is why you can't use a Wikipedia article as a reference for another Wikipedia article). If you eventually become very active here, you may be able to get away with listing your username and status on various wikis, see e.g. m:User:Snowolf/matrix, but consider that Snowolf is a very experienced admin on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in several languages, no mean user.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Auric section

Hi, I have no problem with a category on works which rely on the Golden ratio for their proportions in some way. But I find the title quite confusing, and the blurb at the top does not make clear what the category is referring to. It may be better to start over with a better title for the category such as Category:Golden mean in art and architecture. Another thing I should bring up is that inclusion in the category should be verifiable, meaning that the article should cite reliable sources about the use of the golden mean in the construction of the work. Currently, some of the items listed there do not mention the golden ratio in the text of the articles. It would be a good idea to fix this first, before trying to include the articles in a category. Silly rabbit (talk) 05:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I know it can be frustrating to see that tag when you're in the middle of working on something you think is worthwhile, but the edit summary shows it was actually placed about a half hour after you created the category. If this is something you're doing a thesis on, it seems quite likely that this is original research, which is not really allowed on Wikipedia. Basically, if you're the first person who noticed that a certain work uses the golden ratio and it's never been written about anywhere, that's OR. You need to go to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_March_8#Category:Works_with_auric_section to defend the category. I'm sorry to say I was rather hard on your research there, but I'm sure it's nothing compared to defending a thesis. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, basically, it went like this. I have Ark of the Covenant on my watchlist. I noticed that a cat was added. I clicked on it to see what it was all about. Then I looked into the history, and noodled around to see what was going on with it. I then formed an opinion and expressed it on the CFD page. I really don't mean it personally, I just don't think it holds up. Maybe it will work in another form like Silly rabbit suggested as long as you do something about the OR issue. And good luck with your thesis. I mean that. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind message. To be honest by the time I was done posting to the RFC page, I was a little unhappy with myself because I felt like I'd taken a little too much pleasure in tearing down what someone else had built. I was just about to make a suggestion about what you can do to preserve some of your work, but I see you've already started. I think you're on the right track. Write an article that's well referenced with reliable sources. When you're ready to have it seen by others, you can rename the page something like "Works using the golden ratio" or "List of works with golden ratio". Then if you re-create the category, you can put a sentence or two at the top referencing the article to explain to readers and editors what your rationale is for including in articles in the category. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The only problem I can anticipate with doing it that way is that someone might think the information doesn't belong in the individual articles and you might have to fight in each article to get it in. But, if you have one article all about the golden ratio in art and architecture that's coherent and referenced to reliable secondary sources, I think it would survive. Once you have that, you can create the cat with one or two explanatory sentences and a link to the article you created. If nothing else, this would save you having edit disputes all over Wikipedia. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That's good advise.--20-dude (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dude: In response to the question you posted on my Talk page, I suggest that you slow down a bit and learn more about Wikipedia, its policies, its guidance for those who write and edit articles, its Wikipedia: Manual of Style, etc., before adding articles, starting WP:PROJECTs, and creating categories. Your new project page, for example, omits from its list of resources many of the authoritative sources cited in the Golden ratio article itself. Also, as the Golden ratio article shows, a lot of nonsense has been written about the golden ratio, and not everything written on the topic is by a reliable source. Have you read Mario Livio's book, which is repeatedly cited in Golden ratio? He does a good job of dispelling many myths about the golden ratio. Not every building that incorporates the golden ratio warrants an article of its own under Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please take the time to spell check what you contribute to Wikipedia. Expanding and refining Wikipedia's already extensive treatment of the golden ratio is hardly an emergency, so please take the time to be thoughtful and to consider what has already been written. Thanks for your interest in the topic and participation. Finell (Talk) 01:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC) (I will watch for your reply here on your Talk page.)

(copied from )"(...)omits from its list of resources many of the authoritative sources cited in the Golden ratio article itself." I'm just starting. Howcome every single editor expects every article to be finished already when it is just starting? I'm starting the list from scratch. First placing the books written by the historical researchers, then the academic and scientific researchers from universities and scientific organizatons, then other authors, then internet pages from academic/scientific, and finally regular sourced useful amateur internet pages... If you want you would be more than welcomed to put those sources you mention in the project. Because of your next comment there is still a lot left for me to do:

Also, as the Golden ratio article shows, a lot of nonsense has been written about the golden ratio, and not everything written on the topic is by a reliable source. Yes I'm plenty aware. I could use some more of your advising here. I was thinking on maybe dividing the list in:

• works that have clear golden proportion and have been studied in diverse quotable publications (like stonehenge, the pyramids or the music of Beethoven)
• works designed with golden proportion (the parthenon, da vinci's work, le corbusier's work, etc.)

But that would left some other works like the Gothic cathedrals right in the middle. They have unknown authors but the geometrical coincidence is even more detailed than the parthenon.

What are your thoughts? By the way, even if you're an opposer you should be involved.--20-dude (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"I'm starting the list from scratch." That is a big part of the problem. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Many others have done considerable work on this topic, and that work should not be ignored. No one expects a expects a new article to be complete. However, whatever is published in Wikipedia, however short, should be accurate, correctly spelled, grammatically correct, and supported by correctly cited reliable sources; Wikipedia's usefulness and reputation depend on this. I have no idea what you mean by "even if you're an opposer". I have done considerable work on the Golden ratio article and many other article in fields that interest me. What do you think that I am opposing? I do suggest that you try to work any new, properly sourced and cited material that you have into Golden ratio before going off in other directions. That article already discusses buildings and artworks with golden ratio proportions, and more documented examples would be welcome there. But please exercise some care in what you contribute. It is embarrassing to see words like Renaissance and Egypt misspelled on Wikipedia! As I previously requested, if you wish to reply to this message, please reply here, on your Talk page, to preserve the continuity of the conversation. Thanks again. Finell (Talk) 02:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Categories for Discussion and "Votes"

When people have something like "Delete," "Keep," "Rename," etc. in bold at the beginning of their comment in CfD and similar project pages, they are usually not voting, but simply summarizing their position so that others can more easily get a quick grasp of where everyone stands without neccesarily reading every comment. Don't worry! :) Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 08:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help. If someone writes "Keep as per John Doe," it means "Keep for all the same reasons John Doe already mentioned." That said, maybe people shouldn't post if that's all they've got; I usually don't in those situations. On the other hand, though, if a nominee has five entries of "Delete per nom" (nominator) and no other posts, its a reasonable indicator of consensus, so long as sufficient time has passed. BTW, how long "sufficient time" is depends on the article/category/template/etc. in question, i.e., an article with 50 editors on its talk page every day probably only needs 24 hours, while one that only gets edited twice a month may need a lot longer before consensus can be reached. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 01:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is this still being discussed? The category was already deleted based on unanimity of all who expressed themselves other than the category's creator. Finell (Talk) 04:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC) (To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply here on your Talk page.)

Mmmmh, no ofense but that was kinda between that friendly guy and yours truly. Nobody is going to bring back that category, no need for paranoia. The matter that brought up Dansiman's comment was a slightly related complain/rant I made in an administrative article about wikipedians doing what back then seemed to me as voting, but as it turned out, it is actually not. Nobody will stop the erasing (as far as I know), I actually think it was (or would be?) ok, other wise I wouldn't have placed a tag to speed up its deletion.

To tell you the truth I'm kinda ofended and a little worried about your actions. Not that I'd want to do anything about it, its fine, whatever, but I mean, you have to admit, even though this is public domain, the conversation was implicitly between two persons when discussed on ou talk pages, but not that I mind involving you (you're welcomed anytime, by all mean), going through something that was before I got your attention is kinda weird-ish (or were you in the category discussion?, I don't recall), don't you think?--20-dude (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Finell, we were discussing policy in general, not a specific CfD candidate. And since this is a user talk page, we're free to discuss whatever we want, for as long as we like. Heck, we might just keep this thread going for months, just for the fun of it :) Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 06:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Why, that sounds just - like - fun! Count me in. (actually, I never understood that way of using the word why, as in answering "why, yes", but it really is a lot of fun)--20-dude (talk) 06:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's right along the lines of "But, of course!" Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 01:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Why, yes! It sound just - like - "but, of course"! Yes indeed, my dear fellow wikipedian!--20-dude (talk) 02:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Your efforts to say a bunch of things were designed according to Golden Ratio are very misleading when you don't say who makes the claim, and you don't also supply balancing info about the fact that historians pretty much agree that the golden ratio was unknown to ancient architects and artists. Saying what you find in sources is fine if you cite them, but making a list that implies things not in evidence is not OK. That's why I'm insisting on sources. Please don't keep adding controversial stuff without attribution to sources. Dicklyon (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Dear Dude: I have tried to be patient with you and to give you guidance. You appear to have been influenced by unreliable writings on the golden ratio, which you accept uncritically as fact, and which you do not balance by consulting more reliable sources that have been pointed out to you. The idea that ancient Egyptians used the golden ratio in their designs is nonsense: it is impossible, given the limits of their mathematical knowledge at that time. Your behavior on Wikipedia, although well intended, is disruptive, both in your sloppy, unsourced, and factually inaccurate edits and in your posts on Talk pages. It is one thing to write in the expectation that others will improve or expand on what you contribute. It is quite another to make messes, continually, so that others have to clean up after you. You have twice uploaded copyrighted material without an adequate justification, which exposes Wikipedia Foundation to potential legal liability. I have asked you to modify your behavior and to learn Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, but you have not. While I do not condone Dicklyon's tone or manner (and have him so), that does not justify your attacks or your rambling rantings. You invited the help of Wikipedians with more expertise on the golden ratio, you are getting that help, but you reject its results. If nothing else, consider the likelihood that you are correct and that those with more knowledge of the subject are wrong. While I would welcome future contributions by you if you will abide by this community's standards, you might be more comfortable participating in other wikis that have less rigorous standards. If your disruptive behavior continues, I will invoke appropriate procedures within the Wikipedia community to limit your disruption. I would rather not have to do that.Finell (Talk) 04:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't condone my behavior either. But when my patience is pushed to the limit, shit happens. I tried to help in various ways, including tough love, fixing what could be fixed and removing what was intolerable. But my annoyance came through as abrasiveness; I hate it when that happens. Dude, if you want to make progress in a good direction, admit that Pile is a flaky source and take all that stuff out. Dicklyon (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)