User talk:Moritheil
Please make the latest comments on top (page is in threaded, reverse, chronological order.) Thanks.
[edit]
Hi, i work on a navbox for ways of obtaining science in two related field, scientific method from philosophy of science and dikw pyramid from information science. i need help of some people like you to finsh this,
you can see a prototype of navbox in my sand box: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KPU0/sandbox Plutonium 14:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KPU0 (talk • contribs)
Get On My Horse[edit]
You didn't do this quite right: you put a WP:PROD template on and then listed at AFD. Prod and AFD are not the same thing. I've replaced the PROD with an AFD tag. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. First time actually creating an AFD, though I've participated in several in the past. -moritheilTalk 15:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Also, why did you put your talkpage bottom to top? That's not how other talk pages go, and it's confusing to other users. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter (September 2009)[edit]
| The Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Content | |||||
Question about new page[edit]
Greetings Moritheil I have written a little page about "Prophecy World" on my new account in Wikipedia. How may i let it visible to all with that name? Need i to do anything, or only wait? User:Dragonpeter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonpeter (talk • contribs) 16:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- It is presently visible to all who look in user space. It is not a proper article and may not appear with normal encyclopedia article searches. -moritheilTalk 19:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: Question about User:sjn-0[edit]
Since Xiner is on an indefinite Wikibreak, I will answer for him- No, the -0 series of categories is to show you don't know any of a language, which is why they were all deleted in the first place. It doesn't help to know what languages someone doesn't know. A better option would be to either change the template to the -1 level, or you can have a -0 template on your page, just a category for this isn't allowed. As such, I have re-deleted the category. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding. Obviously, -0 templates are not applied by people who are ignorant of the existence of languages. The very act of applying the template indicates awareness. Thus, the information conveyed is not merely that you don't know a language; it's that you know of the language and are not up to level 1. (Of course it's trivial to indicate you know a popular language like French exists. However, it is not trivial to indicate you know of an obscure language like Sindarin: even if you don't have any linguistic capability, there is a certain cultural awareness present.) Given that 26 people currently use sjn-0, there surely is a need for some way to efficiently express that. If you state that sjn-0 isn't the right way to express it, I will accept that, but what then is the right way to express it with the Babel code when sjn-1 isn't appropriate? Also, would you happen to have a link to the discussion of -0 lang templates in general where people voted against them? Again, thanks for your help. -moritheilTalk 21:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, by any of a language I did not mean didn't know the existence of a language, I indeed meant the -0 level categories were to signify that one doesn't have any proficiency in a language. You are still allowed to have -0 userboxes on your page if you wish, it is only categories that have been deleted. A link to many of the discussions can be found here. If you wish to overturn this long standing and (IMO sound) precedent, you will have to take it to deletion review. The fact that 26 people are in that category only means it was improperly re-added to the userbox, which I will remove. There are tons of unencyclopedic userboxes out there, and I'm sure there would be hundreds of users in such categories if a category were attached to them. VegaDark (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- You have referred obliquely to the "soundness" of this decision as though it is a foregone conclusion, but some explanation would have been nice. Though I am sure you are acting in the best of intentions, perhaps you can agree there is something perversely frustrating about asking for help getting something to work, only to be answered with deletions that ensure it will never work. I did not mean to give you cause to further prune away useful features, and though I suppose you see no use in them, I don't see what the benefit to Wikipedia is in getting rid of them when you simultaneously acknowledge that other people are using them.
- Yes, by any of a language I did not mean didn't know the existence of a language, I indeed meant the -0 level categories were to signify that one doesn't have any proficiency in a language. You are still allowed to have -0 userboxes on your page if you wish, it is only categories that have been deleted. A link to many of the discussions can be found here. If you wish to overturn this long standing and (IMO sound) precedent, you will have to take it to deletion review. The fact that 26 people are in that category only means it was improperly re-added to the userbox, which I will remove. There are tons of unencyclopedic userboxes out there, and I'm sure there would be hundreds of users in such categories if a category were attached to them. VegaDark (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid my understanding was not improved by your explanation. The only strike against -0 level language templates I can see is your assertion that "It doesn't help to know what languages someone doesn't know," but I have just pointed out there is at least one way in which the -0 level language notification is actually indicative of more than just that. Furthermore, there are many contexts in which it could be very helpful to assert that a user does not know a given language: one who edits many Japanese-related articles could wish to remind others that he does not actually know Japanese, for instance.
- True, users were against it in the initial discussion, but the assumption was made that 0-lang categories were inherently useless and would be seldom-used. As to the first, not one commenter there accounted for the two reasons I have just outlined, which show that not all lang-0 templates are inherently useless, given the proper context. These would seem to be arguments that have been wholly overlooked simply because no one present raised them. As to the second, you have just agreed that 26 users currently find the feature useful. The assertion in the deletion discussion that "no one will use these" is therefore untenable.
- In short, this is mystifying. I presume there is a reason to be dead set against users taking advantage of this feature, but I can't think of what. At any rate, would it be possible to userfy those categories instead of deleting them altogether? That was, after all, the solution for userboxes, was it not? If your only objection is that they are unencyclopedic, then surely making them "unofficial" and moving them to user space should work. I have no objection to their unofficial status but I would like to see their function restored, one way or another. -moritheilTalk 23:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, there is no way to userfy categories. There is no "User category" namespace. Second, even if you 100% convinced me, I couldn't do anything about it. You would still need to get the original decision to delete this category reversed at deletion review. Third, I don't find any of your reasons to restore the 0-level category system remotely persuasive enough to do so. Perhaps I don't quite understand what your intent with them is, so let me clarify my position: user categories are for the sole purpose of seeking out other Wikipedians to facilitate collaboration on the encyclopedia. What possible reason would someone have to seek out someone who does not know Japanese (to cite your example). A userbox notice on that individual's userpage stating they do not know Japanese may indeed be useful for others visiting his page, but a category will not be. The fact 26 users decided to add this userbox (and hence, add the category) is IMO totally irrelevant. If 100 users added a "This user likes bananas" userbox, and that userbox had a category added to it, the fact that 100 people were in the category does not justify its creation, as the ability to seek out users who like bananas would not help the encyclopedia in any way, just as the ability to seek out those who don't know a particular language wouldn't help the encyclopedia in any way. Hopefully that clarifies my position on the category, and if you still disagree, I strongly suggest you bring it to deletion review to make your arguments. Also, I'll be watching this page if you respond further, so no need to leave the talkback template on my page anymore. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- The number of people who use the category is worth mentioning because one of the original arguments for deletion (in your link) was that nobody would use the category. You may personally find it irrelevant, but it was a part of the basis for that original consensus. Even if your opinion was not based on that, other opinions were, so it is a relevant to a discussion of why a consensus to delete existed. I have therefore acknowledged it as a preexisting argument and shown that it is false.
- Unfortunately, there is no way to userfy categories. There is no "User category" namespace. Second, even if you 100% convinced me, I couldn't do anything about it. You would still need to get the original decision to delete this category reversed at deletion review. Third, I don't find any of your reasons to restore the 0-level category system remotely persuasive enough to do so. Perhaps I don't quite understand what your intent with them is, so let me clarify my position: user categories are for the sole purpose of seeking out other Wikipedians to facilitate collaboration on the encyclopedia. What possible reason would someone have to seek out someone who does not know Japanese (to cite your example). A userbox notice on that individual's userpage stating they do not know Japanese may indeed be useful for others visiting his page, but a category will not be. The fact 26 users decided to add this userbox (and hence, add the category) is IMO totally irrelevant. If 100 users added a "This user likes bananas" userbox, and that userbox had a category added to it, the fact that 100 people were in the category does not justify its creation, as the ability to seek out users who like bananas would not help the encyclopedia in any way, just as the ability to seek out those who don't know a particular language wouldn't help the encyclopedia in any way. Hopefully that clarifies my position on the category, and if you still disagree, I strongly suggest you bring it to deletion review to make your arguments. Also, I'll be watching this page if you respond further, so no need to leave the talkback template on my page anymore. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- In short, this is mystifying. I presume there is a reason to be dead set against users taking advantage of this feature, but I can't think of what. At any rate, would it be possible to userfy those categories instead of deleting them altogether? That was, after all, the solution for userboxes, was it not? If your only objection is that they are unencyclopedic, then surely making them "unofficial" and moving them to user space should work. I have no objection to their unofficial status but I would like to see their function restored, one way or another. -moritheilTalk 23:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding the use of Jpn-0, it's not just that someone doesn't know Japanese - in context, it's that he doesn't know Japanese and might be reasonably expected to. Thus, one could find Wikipedians who might be expected to know Japanese, but don't - that is, those who worked on Japanese articles, with a quality that might suggest language proficiency. That's awfully long-winded, but so is Association_of_Wikipedians_Who_Dislike_Making_Broad_Judgements_About_the_Worthiness_of_a_General_Category_of_Article,_and_Who_Are_In_Favor_of_the_Deletion_of_Some_Particularly_Bad_Articles,_but_That_Doesn%27t_Mean_They_are_Deletionist, and it perseveres. With regard to usefulness, consider sjn-0, which we were talking about originally. There is worth in knowing how many Wikipedians of different sorts might be called upon to ask for help with various parts of the Tolkien-related projects, and what their language proficiencies are: sjn-0 would instantly indicate two important and helpful pieces of information and would cover a group of Wikipedians who do not fit in sjn-1 and up.
- Would you deny that asking a user who self-identifies as sjn-0 to comment on something Tolkien-related - say, a statement about Quenya written by people who are fluent in it, to make sure that it makes sense to those with no ability in Quenya - might make more sense than asking a random Wikipedian who has no interest in anything to do with fantasy and might even think poorly of fantasy fiction? Sometimes you need an outsider opinion, but you still want someone interested in a topic.
- Incidentally (and separately), as a metapedian I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that the inclusion of arbitrary self-identification categories to promote user interaction would be harmful or counterproductive. Merely because something does not result in direct progress does not mean it will not result in progress; it only means this progress becomes harder to appreciate and quantify. Users connecting with other users is a good thing in general: it gives context to their work, and keeps them coming back. We've all seen the evil side of this with edit warring, where two users get angry and seek out each others' edits to revert, but there is also a positive side, where someone can work with other editors to shore up their weaknesses and create better articles. My experience welcoming new users for the welcome committee means that I often see what their contributions are, and I believe this has resulted in my making more edits (fixing grammar, for instance.) Without these connections I would make fewer edits and also log in less often here. This might not be true of all users, but it's certainly true of some. Isn't it fair to say that not everyone uses or experiences Wikipedia in the same way? What merit is there in denying users features that might make some of them more productive? -moritheilTalk 00:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't even see "Not many people likely to be in the category" as a reason for deletion in my brief onceover of the discussions, but regardless, it is one of many arguments, certainly not the only argument for deletion, so the G4 speedy deletion still readily applies. Like I said, you don't need to convince me, you need to convince the community by way of WP:DRV, so I really think it is pointless to respond to the rest of your arguments for why you think such a category system should be restored. I'll respond there if you so choose to contest the deletion. VegaDark (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Incidentally (and separately), as a metapedian I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that the inclusion of arbitrary self-identification categories to promote user interaction would be harmful or counterproductive. Merely because something does not result in direct progress does not mean it will not result in progress; it only means this progress becomes harder to appreciate and quantify. Users connecting with other users is a good thing in general: it gives context to their work, and keeps them coming back. We've all seen the evil side of this with edit warring, where two users get angry and seek out each others' edits to revert, but there is also a positive side, where someone can work with other editors to shore up their weaknesses and create better articles. My experience welcoming new users for the welcome committee means that I often see what their contributions are, and I believe this has resulted in my making more edits (fixing grammar, for instance.) Without these connections I would make fewer edits and also log in less often here. This might not be true of all users, but it's certainly true of some. Isn't it fair to say that not everyone uses or experiences Wikipedia in the same way? What merit is there in denying users features that might make some of them more productive? -moritheilTalk 00:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar[edit]
|
The Barnstar of Integrity | |
| The Barnstar of Integrity may be awarded to those editors who have shown to be a person of integrity and honor.
This barnstar is awarded to Moritheil for his open mind and willingess to change his mind based on new evidence. Wikipedia needs more impartial and observant editors like you, keep up the good work! Ikip (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC) |
Moved from user talk ikip:
- Thanks for the barnstar! I haven't been around for the past week or two, so I'm just catching up now. -moritheilTalk 12:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks[edit]
Thanks for the kind comment. Unfortunately, I am far too irascible to have been here for three years without stepping on way too many toes to feel it's worthwhile even trying to become an admin. Grace Note (talk) 09:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
May 2009 Bot Messages[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page The King of Terror has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \babout\.com\b (links: http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa070599.htm, http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa070599.htm (redirect from http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa070599.htm)).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Copied chat log[edit]
Just notifying (more likely reminding) you that your bot is unable to distinguish valid from invalid use of links. In this case I'm talking about pop culture, so linking to a pseudoscience web site from About.com is essential to proving the point that the issue is still talked about in pop culture. -moritheilTalk 23:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, we are aware of this limitation. This is why the bot only reverts commonly misused links when they are added by new users. In the case of about.com, while the site has some of original content, a large portion of the information there is a mirror of our content. --Versageek 12:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I appreciate the response. Sadly, this is happening again. I've been trying to reinstate the link section over at Symbolism and this bot has started edit-warring me because it doesn't like the wikia link that the original link section included. I'm not sure why it hasn't stopped after I undid it once and continued editing. I have no objection to the idea that we need to find better links but it's annoying to get warnings from a bot that doesn't understand what I'm doing, which is restoring an entire section that was deleted in error. -moritheilTalk 02:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Restored link section again and it seems to have stopped reverting me. Working fine now. Just a suggestion, maybe you could make it selectively identify and remove just links instead of using reversion. If I had not stuck around we would have lost not only the link section but also all the other edits I had made for NPOV, style, clarity, etc. -moritheilTalk 02:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Symbolism do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bwikia\.com\b (links: http://symbolism.wikia.com/, http://symbolism.wikia.com/wiki/Symbolism_Wiki (redirect from http://symbolism.wikia.com/)).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Symbolism. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bwikia\.com\b (links: http://symbolism.wikia.com/, http://symbolism.wikia.com/wiki/Symbolism_Wiki (redirect from http://symbolism.wikia.com/)).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 02:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
General question re: past work from different IP[edit]
Moved from user talk:Ikip
I actually edited Wikipedia years ago from another IP address (college dorm). I created an article or two but did not make an account. Would it be feasible for me to attach those to my account? I'm unfamiliar with the process if your current IP is not the same as your old IP (or indeed, if it's even possible.) I just realized that while it probably makes no real difference, it might be nice to be able to point and say, "I created that." Thanks for any light you can shed. -moritheilTalk 12:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- The short answer is no, you cannot attach the information from another account.
- I would suggest asking at WP:Village Pump (techinical) they may have a different answer.
- Just because you did the work under a different account, does not mean you cannot mention this work on your talk or user page, saying, "I did this work".
- You could also redirect the IP address to this account. Ikip (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Article Rescue Squadron: Welcome[edit]
Hi, Moritheil, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!
If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! Ikip (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC) | |||||||
Can I ask how you found out about the squad? Ikip (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the welcome. As an inclusionist, I was looking at (and improving) articles up for deletion, and ran across some that were rescue flagged. -moritheilTalk 20:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Welcome[edit]
Hello, Moritheil, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Ikip (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
| ||||
Content
Yandere at AFD again already[edit]
I'm contacting everyone who participated in the last AFD four months ago, who hasn't already commented in the current AFD for Yandere, in case anyone wants to participate again. Dream Focus 09:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Courtesy note[edit]
You are receiving this note because of your participation in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iceland–Mexico relations, which is now being revisited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iceland–Mexico relations (2nd nomination). –xenotalk 17:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Rescue[edit]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armageddon theology WritersCramp (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!