User talk:Grapeguy

Heron message
Hey, I just saw your quite newly registered, and nobodies said hello yet. So I thought I'd take the opportunity to welcome you here :) . Well insofar as I can welcome you, me not being a regular user around here really :D. But I do kind of know my way round, so if your in need of advice/help, feel free to drop me a line on my userpage (or perhaps better here, I log in more regularly to that account). Anyway I hope you enjoy doing some editing here and don't engage in trench warfare anytime soon :D (don't get yourself frustrated is what I'm trying to say). Regards Sean Heron (talk) 06:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

OH, PS, and remember to be bold!

Botteville message
Hello Mr. grapeguy. Welcome to Wikipedia. For a newb you already know a lot. It was weeks before I could reference a subsection with the #, and as far as leaving messages goes, I was getting messages to quit leaving messages on user pages for quite a long time. Then I would leave them on my own pages and months after people would say, "I finally read your message ...." In any case you seem to be doing everything just right. I would suggest though you put SOMETHING on your new user page, which (in case you might not have known) you can do by clicking the user page tab above and typing in. Don't forget to save.

Thank you for pointing out that things have been happening to my article in my absence. It isn't mine of course, it's Wikipedia's. I did that article in less of a state of experience. Experienced editors don't like inexperienced ones. I'm the exception. I wouldn't put those examples in there as links right in the article today. Experienced editors don't do that. The usual way is to create a footnote and put the link in a footnote, but not the way I did it, rather with a cite web. However in a sense that is irrelevant. Links are the most vulnerable part of an article. They die fast for a number of reasons, such as changing location, the author's inability to keep his site or his domain, or his just plain getting sick of looking at the same picture all the time, or discovery of Copyright problems with the picture or the text. Fixing links is an ongoing task at Wikipedia and it is the first thing I look at when I decide to edit an article. The more experienced editors are too lazy or too arrogant to do it; they just put a bunch of tags in and expect someone else to do it. In my view there are working editors and blood-sucking editors and I usually try to be a working editor. The Old Man and the Sea.

I only had recourse to external links because no pictures existed in commons. You can get to commons by clicking on its icon on Wikipedia fp. Then you search for your topic and the available pictures come up, but you need to search under different but related topics. It isn't a good idea today to download pictures that are not on commons. Commons used to plug flikr but they turned out to be offering mainly duds, pictures that really were copyrighted and had to be removed from Wikipedia.

I appreciate my article finding favor in your eyes. What I am saying in this long-winded way is a simple fix isn't really good enough. It needs an update. First, there are many more pics on commons than there were so each example now can probably be found on commons and built right into the article. Second, once anyone starts looking on commons, they are going to find other things and are going to want to do a little rewriting to bring in the nice pics. If no commons pics can be found then the Internet has to be searched for new and credible pics to include. Moreover, I never did finish the article: the old man and the sea syndrome. The longer you are on an article the more sharks you attract and they will NOT let you bring home the fish. I guess no one but you and me gives much of rat's tail about Cretan pottery or they would have destroyed the article by now. That's OK; that's the way I like it. Throw the bait so as to keep the predators off the nest.

So I do not know what really to say. I work by agenda unless there is an emergency, such as an article I worked on about to lose a status. They rank articles here. I am putting this article on my agenda right now but I do not know when it will be at the top. If you know something of Cretan pottery and can find out how to fix it go ahead.

If you really are a newb and not an experienced editor trying to wipe the slate clean, prepare yourself for the assault of the sharks. All I can say is try not to lose your temper and to realize that no article can be perfect. Don't respond like to like if you can help it. We are not all equal here. The rules apply to some but not to others. Just do the best you can. There are over 2 mil articles and such a mass media tool still seems to me to be worth learning some patience. Imagine you are in kindergarten and abuse by children of the teacher is allowed. I wouldn't trade my Wikipedia experience for anything. What a view of mankind you get! The poor struggling mud-crawler, able to see the light but not able to crawl vary far into it and constantly turning purple with frustration over it. Welcome once again, and non carborundum illegitimis.Dave (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I agree with you about the utility of Wikipedia. It's like flipping a coin but then if heads are something and tails nothing you get heads at least half the time. I got warn you, Wikipedia ain't too friendly. The problem was inherent at the outset. Wales had a company he hired to do an encyclopedia but they didn't and couldn't - do it fast enough so he threw it open to the public. Naturally they didn't like that too well as they were getting paid to do the encyclopedia. They considered themselves "the experts" though on what basis they did that I do not know. If we could teach apes to read I wouldn't give them the "expert" stuff, as it was so inexpert. Their next move was to attack and drive off the public, which is, in a way, a form of sabotage. If Wales was not going to pay them to do it then by golly nobody was going to do it. They've been doing that ever since. They are the only ones I know skilled enough to totally vandalize an article and not leave a trace behind. Really experienced editor/ skilled vandal - same thing in many cases. They have the power and audacity to put bald-faced lies right into the article, prevent all efforts to take them out or flag them and insist YOU are the vandal for trying to do that, and make all that stick. Bah. They're all wet. Anyway as is usual the many people outnumber and eventually outweigh the few. I've seen improvement in articles that seemed hopeless. Eventually we attrit them down. As for your goals, you know, I had goals something like that. It was clear to me the encyclopedia could do far more than I could and faster so I threw in. Despite the running gun battles I am getting what I hoped to get and I hope you do also. The big advantage of this encyclopedia, which you must not neglect, is the links. Everything is interconnected. Let's say you read an intro to Crete. It should lead to a few dozen other articles, so by the time you are done it is not an intro but a whole book and more. Most books can't cover every Cretan site but Wikipedia can. It only remains to do it. Anyway I'm sorry about the article. My mind is set on something else right now. If I start in to fix an article I get drawn in deeper and deeper and next thing I know the other things I was working on get lost. It does take a long time to command Wikipedia labor. We do this for various reasons most of us not for money or glory so we work on what we feel like working on. Bonne chance. Pursue your educational goal and share it with us but don't get too upset if your stuff is mercilessly edited and often made worse. Sooner ot later it will get fixed. I got to go now. You can delete eveything on this page, no problem. The record of it stays forever but you may not want all the clutter on display. Some people keep pages and pages of it like notches on a big gun but I never saw any point in that. So after few weeks I will be deleting your messages. Good luck with it. Semper fi.Dave (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you guy. Eventually Crete will come to the top of my agenda again. If you are going to edit on Wikipedia you may find the help of great help. Most everything is in there, you just have to look for it. In keeping with the first advice (not mine) on this page, editors are not going to be especially eager to jump to your help, or "hold your hand", so to speak. You generally have to do it yourself. Hence the advice to be aggressive. Once you are you will find a good many editors eager to jump to your correction. Don't get discouraged (my advice on this page). Wikipedia can't happen unless we make it happen. You reasons seem perfectly sound but ideals must be implemented. I think that about exhausts our topics of conversation (unless something more comes up) so I am going to wipe my slate clean. Bonjour monsieur.Dave (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hyuk hyuk! I don't want to be unfriendly. You will get enough of that if you stick with it. If you got any light brief topics you want to discuss, or tips you would like, OK. I think Wikipedia offers a mentor. I shouldn't have got into this with you really except under the history of Wikipedia vendettas. It's more complicated than you think - there are many axes to be ground here, whether of advertising or partisan politics or just plain insanity, but that is what Wikipolice are for. I just try to write articles. Sincere good wishes. I do like a clean slate. It helps me think better.Dave (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

December 2009
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Farmers home administration a different title by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. I42 (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of Lilakai Julian Neil for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lilakai Julian Neil is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Lilakai Julian Neil until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Fly by Night  (  talk  )  03:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Pottery articles and categories
Hi, glad you got my message. To answer your general question: yes, we're definitely missing some basics about the history of pottery/ceramics around the world. If you think we're missing something that isn't similarly covered in Category:Pottery or the like, you should feel free to create them. Feel free to drop me a line in the future, especially if you create articles such as Pottery in Africa or Ceramics in Africa. Thanks, Steven Walling &bull; talk   19:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Phlyax play, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. Thank you.  Kudu ~I/O~ 20:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You have a reply on my talk page
The Transhumanist 01:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Your contributed article, History of pottery


Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, History of pottery. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Pottery. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Pottery - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Shakinglord:Kudos, Mailbox, ??? 18:48, 10 October 2011 (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) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to a research survey
Hello Grapeguy,

I am Allen Lin, a computer science PhD student at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are working on a project studying the main article and sub article relationship in a purpose of better serving the Wikipedia article structure. We noticed that you've created main/sub article relationship in Pottery for Minoan pottery. So it would be appreciated if you could take 4-5 minutes to finish the survey questions. Thanks in advance! We will not collect any of your personally information.

Thank you for your time to participate this survey. Your response is important for us!

https://umn.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_bvm2A1lvzYfJN9H — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheetah90 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)