User talk:Tarcieri

Singularity Rewrite
While much of your re-write is very well done, I have to ask who you're writing for.

Yes, much of the opening was general and then moved in to refine it's concepts. From general, to specific. This was done for a reason. Wikipedia is meant to be general reference and educational tool.

Does your re-write make perfect sense to a colleague who shares your views? Yes, it does - and it's handy that you both have a concise formation of your idea to fall back on.

Does your re-write make perfect sense to a high-school freshman? Did the article do so before? If the answers are 'No', and 'Yes' - then your edit is failure.

Correctness and clarity are crucial to Wikipedia. So is accessibility by all target audiences. - Beowulf314159 12:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Alan Au 20:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Well done!
Congratulations for your work on the Kurt Cobain article! --Greedy 23:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the Kurt Cobain article
I think together we did a good job cleaning up the Addiction and Death section and boiling it down to citeable facts. Tarcieri 00:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it looks great! I have to admit, I spent a lot of time on the dispute and after death sections, and hadn't really paid much attention to the timeline leading up to his death, which is easily one of the more significant elements of the article.  Many thanks!! -- ChrisB 05:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Shadows of the Mind
Wow! I was wondering if this book was read by enough people for someone to get around to writing an article about it. I have had it on my user page for some time now as an article to write when I was feeling inspired, but you have beaten me to it. I am curious as to what your thoughts on the book are (assuming you have read it). Remy B 08:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have yet to see a logically solid argument to refute Penrose's core "does not terminate" diagonal-slash argument, although not without want of trying. I really want to be able to read an argument to refute the idea of a non-computational-mind (if it is actually true in the end) that strikes me as valid and without gaps or vagueitys (sp?) like Penrose's argument did. I just read over the first rebuttal link you added to the article and was fairly unimpressed. The "Extra Hints" part seemed flawed, perhaps even circular reasoning, although I would have to be careful to word my explanation correctly because it is notoriously easy to convey the wrong message with this sort of thing. I have read Consciousness Explained and while I agree with a lot of it, it didnt argue the computational point as rigorously as Penrose did in Shadows of the Mind. The thing I found most frustrating about Consciousness Explained was that at the end I didnt really feel that consciousness was explained, rather than discussed. Daniel Dennett is a great writer though, I am currently reading his book Darwin's Dangerous Idea. I may try to describe my reservations about that "Extra Hints" concept some time. Remy B 09:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

CTMU
Thanks for your comment at the AfD. You might want to left-justify and attach a bold recommendation (e.g. Keep or Delete), as is customary&mdash;I'd hate to see your input overlooked! Tim Smith 04:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the article was deleted. You might want to add your opinion to the deletion review. Tim Smith 04:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Wildbananarj9.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Wildbananarj9.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 19:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

List of famous people responsible for a death
Since you seem to be the major ocntributor to this article, could I just say that it was not one of your better ideas. Sorry. Unfortunately it is almost impossible to have an article like this without problems. Since there is no encyclopaedic topic "famous people responsible for a death", a list in support of that concept is in any case likely to be deleted as arbitrary, but in this case the inclusion of names without context is positively inviting trouble. I'm sure that was not what you had in mind. Sorry about the wasted effort, but I'm afraid that opinion seems to be pretty firmly opposed to the idea of this list. Cheers, Guy (Help!) 14:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Strageloop.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Strageloop.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Technological singularity GA Sweeps Review: On Hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Technological singularity and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages of a few other editors and several related WikiProjects to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move of Novelty theory to Timewave zero
As a significant contributor to this article, you may wish to comment here. Cardamon (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Comparison of Colorado ski resorts
I wanted to complement you on this article. It looks great. I'd like to help out; out of curiosity, where are you getting your source info? Shadowjams (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just taking it verbatim from the infoboxes on the pages from each of the linked resorts. If you spot any errors or inaccuracies feel free to correct them Tarcieri (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to Jimmy Wales. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write practically anything you want. Please don't do that. Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The pic was a copyvio as well, please don't upload those in general. Thanks. Killiondude (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A little joke edit every now and then never hurt nobody :) Tarcieri (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Parralox


A tag has been placed on Parralox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent 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. First Light (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Parralox
Hi Tarcieri. I'm afraid that I deleted Parralox, as it was exactly the same as the version that was deleted at Articles for deletion/Parralox. There needs to be some evidence that the concerns raised at that discussion have been addressed before Parralox can have an article. Namely, you need to show that Parralox passes one of the criteria at WP:BAND. If you want, I can move the deleted article to your userspace so that you can work on it; if you are satisfied that you have addressed the concerns in the deletion discussion then you can ask me and I'll take a look at it. Let me know if you have any questions about any of this. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 10:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Guilty until proven innocent, with a mandatory death sentence, huh? Do you guys ever stop to consider why participation in Wikipedia is declining? I used to use Wikipedia as my #1 go to source about music, but I guess I will use Last.fm from now on, because they actually bother to document bands I care about. Tarcieri (talk) 05:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)