User talk:Arvedui

Welcome from Redwolf24
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.
 * User:Redwolf24/Bootcamp My own personal summarized Bootcamp.

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

Remember to place any articles you create into a category so we don't get orphans.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;) for just your name. 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.

Redwolf24 (Talk) 03:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I like messages :-P

Repeal of Prohibition
Why do you think Prohibition requires a capital letter in this article? pfctdayelise 14:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it's talking about the end of the specific period of US Prohibition under the 18th Amendment which is identified by the capitalised name, and not just a general practice of prohibiting a certain drink or substance. Note that on the Prohibition page itself, the term is generally capitalised as well. (e.g. "In the United States, Prohibition was accomplished..." and "During this period, support for Prohibition diminished..." to cite a couple.)  -- Arvedui 04:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Stereotypes of animals
Thanks for your excellent contributions to Stereotypes of animals - they've really helped expand the list. violet/riga (t) 11:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Anti-Semitism
My intent was not to delete any comment you'd made, but if you made a new one, it was lost in the middle of your corrections of other people's comments -- which in general will get reverted (let people make their own typos, mistakes, and mis-sayings.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, I can accept the principle, but please be clear; my comment wasn't made "in the middle of my corrections". It was made alone and in full, along with the changing of a single nearby "A" to the "S" that was obviously intended, as well as making the section-header a bit more informative than it was (my impression was that Talk pages are intended for effective communication over posterity). If you considered maintaining the typo as important to the integrity of the page (which I'm not arguing, even if I think it's a bit silly), I don't see why you didn't just reinsert it rather than wiping my comment out along with it in a revert. --Arvedui 01:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Basic rule: don't mess with other people's comments, in any way, unless they are abusive. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Recategorizing
Hey, good job. Yes, it is too big and too tedious job to do manually. Long time ago I remember trying some bot that supposed to do recat-ing but there was some trouble... I guess my brain removed painful memories... Hopefully it's already fixed so I think the best way to proceed is to try looking for proper tools. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the support in the Chapter Fourteen afd. Clamster5 16:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Another thank you
Your missive was most welcome this morning. Truth is, I am a professional writer and I am writing a book about racehorses (not my usual thing, nonfiction) and wikipedia is a great place to noodle around in, even if it's not entirely happy with my style. Meaning some folks aren't happy, as they never cease to remind me. gggg Knowing this I did try to remove my offensive material but they found that even more offensive...so here it remains and here I remain adding more fuel to the fire. ..Ki Longfellow 15:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

and another
Glad someone else got my point in that thing. Too many of the people involved are either way too protective of the Jewish identity, and want to 'check' who has the 'proper membership cards', and others are way too literal about the souce rules. Doesn't help that WP:bio and WP: Verifiability conflict for that discussion. But thanks for the support.ThuranX 05:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

College Tonight
I'm a hyper-strong deletionist. However, and I cannot stress this enough, I feel that articles MUST fail a guideline or policy before I vote delete. I honestly do not think this one does. I don't like it. I don't like the tone, or even the subject. But the fact, to me, remains: if it's been the subject of non-trivial coverage, I can't vote based on my distaste. To me, it's sort of like reasonable doubt. When it comes to miscellaneous stuff, seriously old stubs, and the like, I'm more strict, but someone went to the trouble of rewriting the thing and finding verifiable sources. If it reads like an add, fix it. If what you're left with afterwards is a stub, fine -- a stub can always be expanded.

I'm not trying to be ironic, or sarcastic, or make a point. I'm voting based on what I think the criteria deletionists should vote on -- what's actually the policy. (Man, that sentence reads badly.) -- Elar  a  girl  Talk 22:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Mars Simulation Project
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Mars Simulation Project, because another editor is suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add db-author to the top of the page. B. Wolterding (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Robotic voice effects
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Robotic voice effects, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Not a deliberate fortune-teller!
No problem, your edit was just a little too eager! I'll look forward to hearing/reading that same-sex marriage in Sweden is final (unlike here where it gets taken away.) —EqualRights (talk) 12:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Linking
Hi, Arvedui, thanks for your good work on en.WP. I just mostly reverted your additions of linking to Economy of New Zealand. The linking guidelines stress that commonly understood terms shouldn't normally be linked (e.g. "agriculture", "United States"), and that links should be preferably as specific as possible rather than general. When linking to a section or a daughter article, it usually needs to be piped into the grammar of the sentence, and a general pipe runs the risk of not being clicked on (readers tire of them). An alterative is to insert specific links, unpiped, into the "See also" section at the bottom. Tony  (talk)  03:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Tony, thanks for your dedication to improving en.WP also. I'm afraid I disagree quite strongly that most of the links I added were problematic, however. I was moved to edit the article in the first place when I found that after 15-20 seconds of looking for one, I still saw no obvious link from the article back to the main New Zealand page, where I actually wanted to go. (I later noticed a tiny link in the infobox, but this only goes to prove my point about its inadequacy.)
 * I checked the WP guidelines on linking, and while they do caution against wikifying words indiscriminately, they also allow that the first few paragraphs of an in-depth article do frequently have a higher-than-average number of linked terms, and I don't believe any of the terms I linked were particularly gratuitous. I see from your page (and from the article's history as well) that fighting against overlinking is a bit of a personal cause of yours, and while I certainly agree it can be an issue, I think you may be both overestimating what counts as a 'commonly understood concept' while simultaneously undervaluing the utility of being able to jump to related concepts without scrolling to the bottom of a very long page first. Citing "United States" as an example of a 'commonly-understood term' misses the point that it wasn't being linked in case somebody didn't know what it was, but rather for the utility of being able to navigate easily along relevant tangents which is after all one of WP's greatest strengths.
 * Re: the country-name links, I put those in partly to preserve balance with the linkage back to New Zealand (which as I said was my initial inspiration to edit the article at all) and partly for the value of easy access to the vital stats of those article-relevant countries (population, geography, economy size, etc). Re: the economic-sector links, this is an economics article, so it's entirely possible users who find their way here may wish to explore the precise definitions of those economic terms (trade barriers, preferential trading areas, etc) and activities in greater depth; as an econ graduate I speak from some experience there. It's not like I was wikifying words like 'decade' or 'country' after all. Given that I'm not the first editor lately to try independently re-adding these links since you recently went through and removed them all in the first place (I was unaware of that fact until I checked the history just now), may I suggest that your definition of unnecessary linkage is perhaps a bit overly restrictive in this case.
 * I'm therefore mostly reverting your reversion, though I have dropped a few links to articles that I will concede were not likely to shed any particularly useful new light, such as 'export' and 'commodity' and, yes, 'agriculture'.
 * Further, I notice you undid all the piping even in the few links you left alone. My purpose in piping those was simply to avoid the use of redirects (thereby reducing server load by whatever fractional amount) by linking directly to the page that the term in the article would've redirected to anyway. You might consider adding that to your style-bot if you have a minute. --Arvedui (talk) 03:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, well-known country-names aren't linked unless there's a particular reason for this. Better to add a link to Economy of the United States under the "See also" section. We do not link dictionary terms such as "wool", "meat", and "dairy products". Readers are expected to know common English words. I'm reverting most of your added links now. Tony   (talk)  08:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello
Hi, I just wanted to check whether you're still an active user. Please let me know, when you reat this. Arvedui89 (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)