User talk:Gatorgirl7563/Archive 1

Heyawake
Per your message on my talk page. It's not that I am singling your edits out, or that you formatted the link wrong. Janko's website, while a nice place to play puzzles that are hard to ind elsewhere on the web, does not meet WP:EL criteria. Sites to play games never meet our rules on external links, as we are looking for quality information sources. We are an encyclopedia, not a web directory. I personally think the Janko site is great, but it's been removed from other puzzle articles too, as it just doesn't meet what Wikipedia is here for. Even if we did link to sites to play games Janko's wouldn't qualify on the English Wikipedia as the site is in German. DreamGuy (talk) 14:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Janko.at
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Janko.at, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * A non-notable website, no sources cited.

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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Janko.at
I have nominated Janko.at, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Janko.at. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop adding the huge list of non-notable people to Janko.at. If they are notable according to WP:BIO enough to have their own articles, then that's a different matter. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Categories and interwiki links
Howdy, I already explained at Talk:Janko.at the mistake. A wikipedia article about the book "Of Mice and Men" should be in the category "Novels by John Steinbeck" or "1937 Novels", not "Agriculture" or "Rabbits" though the book itself describes such topics. The category system is meant to categorize wikipedia articles, not the contents or related items mentioned by the subject of the article. Adding those categories is disrupting other English wikipedia projects.


 * Please remove them.

Interwiki links are used to link translations of wikipedia articles in other languages. They are not meant to be used to link related topics in other languages. Adding the interwiki links you added will not only disrupt the English wikipedia but the 40 or 50 other wikipedias that you created false and misleading links to.


 * Please remove them.

Generally speaking it is best to leave the technical details up to experienced wikipedians and concentrate on providing content and addressing the core concerns of wikipedia (such as providing wp:reliable sources so the article will not be deleted). Also when someone corrects your mistake twice and even leaves a note on the talk page explaining the matter, it is considered a bit rude to revert them a second time. JackSchmidt (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Manual of Style
Before writing any more articles, I'd advising looking at the Manual of Style, perusing other articles and just generally getting a feel for how they should be written. Looking at Janko.at, you've made some glaring contributions that really shouldn't happen. Nominally, the most times a website should be linked in one page is, generally, two. Not at every mention. That's just spam. As is a massive list of every puzzle available, with links. I'm sure you're editing in good faith, and I don't want to dissuade you, but if you really want to make your contributions count, it's probably a good idea to get your head around how we tend to do it over here beforehand! Thanks and happy editing! Greg Tyler (t &bull; c) 17:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Janko.at
FROM OWNER GATORGIRL7563: DO NOT DELETE Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia



[ ₪]

The symbol " ₪ " will act as a link to Alexa 's page on that particular website.

Why Janko.at is better than Nikoli:

Janko.at has more puzzles than both Nikoli's combined (even if the two sites have completely different puzzles) and they are all free.

The only real difference between Janko.at and Nikoli is that one is a "personal" page and one a "professional" page. Being the official page of a company is the only thing Nikoli has over Janko.at.

Janko.at is more popular, faster, and has more puzzles. Both sites are equally informative with their puzzles, having rules, explanations, and guides for each type, but Janko.at has exponentially more puzzle types and more puzzles for each type, and does not try to sell you anything.

If you halved the amount of traffic Janko.at recieved, it would still be more than what Nikoli gets because you can only play the same 10 example puzzles so many times. I'm not even sure that Nikoli.co.jp has any puzzles and if it does they aren't easy to find

My point is, if Janko.at is not notable and worthy enough to meet Wiki's standards, than neither is Nikoli. Since Nikoli is a crappy free puzzle site, if it wasn't an official site of a company then it would not meet Wiki standards, but Janko.at, which excels Nikoli in every way is Wiki worthy. P.S.  to Dreamguy

Nikoli owns most of the puzzles it publishes but I seriously doubt that they actually created most of them "in the first place".

Encyclopedias are FULL of things that I, not only never heard of, but never even DREAMED could exist. So how can Wikipedians reject something just because it is relatively unknown. It would be unexcuseably egotistical to say that because something is not commonly known it is unimportant.

It can not be denied that with Janko.at containing so many different puzzle types (many of which are VERY popular), and with me putting those puzzle names on the Janko.at’s Wikipedia page, a lot of traffic will be directed to Janko.at’s Wiki page and from there will be directed to Janko.at itself, which WILL make it notable by anyone's standards.

PROOF: A few days ago when I first began my Janko.at article, the "site access counter" said 1,768,792. This morning that same counter said 1,769,748, a traffic increase of nearly 1000. As I write this the counter says 1,769,985, more than 200 more visitors. I don't believe that all the traffic was because of me, but it is a coincidence that supports my claim.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

 Janko.at  is the award-winning, copyrighted, personal page of Angela and Otto Janko, a German couple. Janko.at has information about puzzles, riddles, games, mysteries, and other mental exercises, napkin decorating, German recipes, the Viennesse language (called Wienerisch), nature photography, humor, satire, quotations, and aphorisms. Janko.at has information about Retrograde Chess Analysis, and complete solutions and walkthroughs for adventure style games such as Isis, Phantasmagoria, and Gabriel Knight. Janko.at allows users access to freeware downloads, blogs, and forums. And the best part is, it's all free.

Since Janko.at is a personal page, it links to its creators Ebay store, has photos of their garden, wedding, family coat of arms۞, and pets, as well as information about their hobbies and interests.

File source problem with File:11 30 2009 receipt.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:11 30 2009 receipt.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

November 2010
In a recent edit to the page Light, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Fennec Fox
Hi, Did you have any alternative images in mind for the Fennec Fox? There's a few alternatives here. bobrayner (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your fast response! I don't have any replacements in mind as I never imagined I would be involved in that part of the process, but of the list of images you linked to, I like the 4th one best.


 * File:Fennec Fox Vulpes zerda.jpg
 * com/photos/33590535@N06/4339376480 Fennec Fox Vulpes zerda | Date 2010-01-28 13:07:16 | Author http://www. flickr. com/people/33590535@N06 ...
 * (3,197 × 2,477 (5.51 MB)) - 12:57, 5 January 2012


 * Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 10:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Red hair. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.  Neil N   talk to me  02:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Mastiffs
Thanks for your message. What you described on my talk page would be what we call original research, which not permitted on Wikipedia. If you want the article to say "people often erroneously refer to other breeds as Mastiff", you need a cite that says exactly that. You cannot research a number of websites, or google searches, to collect evidence, then combine them all to present your own conclusion that "people often erroneously refer to other breeds as Mastiff". You need one single reliable source that says both; Thanks. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Some people refer to breeds other that English Mastiff as "Mastiff".
 * This is erroneous.

Canid genetics
Your recent uncited addition to Canid hybrid leaves the article contradicting itself and incoherent. If that is not the reason a fox/wolf hybrids and so on are impossible, what is the reason? It says the reason they can't interbreed successfully is that they have different numbers of genes arranged differently. Then the paragraph ends and you have a new paragraph say that having different numbers of genes arranged differently is no obstacle to successful reproduction, so the reader should ignore the preceding paragraph. As such, it is not clear that your last edit constitutes article improvement. Perhaps it would have been better to post that to the talk page so that we can get this straight and work it in so the article makes sense. Chrisrus (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of speech = New WikiProject
Hi there, I'm notifying you as I saw your userspace links to User free speech. I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do: Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech
 * 1) List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech.
 * 2) Add userbox User Freedom of speech to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
 * 3) Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using WikiProject Freedom of speech.
 * 4) Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
 * 5) Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Acquired characteristic
Hi Gatorgirl -- I had my attention drawn to this article, which you edited quite a bit a few months ago. It looks to me like most of your edits are good stuff, but there are a couple of sections that seem more essayish than encyclopedic in tone. In particular the section on Mind-body correlation reads more like a magazine article than an encyclopedia article, and also doesn't cite any sources. Would you mind if I trim the article down a bit (which, to be completely clear, means that I would probably get rid of that section)? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah. Go for it. Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Help test new SuggestBot design
We have developed an exciting new version of SuggestBot’s interface with some cool features! Volunteer to be one of the first users to try it and help us make it better by answering a short survey! If you’re interested in participating, leave us a message on SuggestBot’s user talk page. Regards from Nettrom, SuggestBot’s caretaker. 18:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Asian black bear, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Provocation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)