User talk:TeamX

Hello, TeamX, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Help How to write a great article Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there.

school stub scandal
hello, i probably just C&Pd the wrong template, thanks for changing it back. i'm trying to create stubs for central american schools and south american schools at the moment. KZF (talk • contribs) 21:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Arji.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Arji.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 05:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Information now updated. TeamX 01:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

EDASeeAlso template
Hi! The EDASeeAlso template which you removed from ATPG serves a useful service, I believe. It directs readers to the technical sources for ATPG articles, mostly IEEE and ACM journals and conferences. It is true that these organizations charge for copies, but they really are the references a serious reader would need. See, for example Placement (EDA). All the references at the bottom of this article are from one of these sources. One alternative might be to find the 5-10 best survey articles on ATPG, and link to them directly, but they will still be IEEE and ACM publications and suffer from the same fee problem (which at least the template tells you up front). Thanks, LouScheffer 21:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

While pointing out specific fee-based access to IEEE and ACM publications "servers a useful service", such service is not the purpose of Wikipedia. The template is a cookie-cutter that was very inacurrate about ATPG. It would have been more useful to pointout the International Test Conference. I suggest that you remove these tags as they break the style of "See Also", are not subject specific, and are a form of advertising. TeamX 03:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your last edit again, as I don't consider the template SPAM as well. In my opinion the information certainly does contribute to the subject. The fact in itself that payment is required doesn't necessarily imply that it is just of simple commercial interest. The books, mentioned in the reference lists, have to be payed for too. Further, both books and conference proceedings can be consulted in academic libraries. If you have valuable suggestions for the content of the template you might start a specific discussion on its talk page. I suggest you to follow the wp:bb guidelines in case of lacking consensus on a certain issue and use the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. So if your edit is undone by someone disagreeing on it, please leave it at that for the main page and just start a discussion on the talk page to try and find new consensus, rather than recklessly redo your edit. WimdeValk 13:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

TO WimdeValk The community is better served by text, and not a template. This template is not applicable.... and cannot be edited for this article only as it is template. I have already suggested putting specific links and specific appropriate conference rather than using a template. Please expect this template to text instead of placing this template across many EDA topics is not helpful. TeamX 23:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi! For an encyclopedia, the references should cite the most authoritative sources.  Free references are great, too, but are not a substitute for the most authoritative ones.  In the case of EDA, almost all of these are either IEEE or ACM.  Although they are not free, they are not spam.  (For example, the ITC conference is published by the IEEE).  Since this is the case for almost all EDA articles, a template makes sense.


 * Note that templates can be included as text, and then edited. If a template is not quite what you want, you can place, for example,  in the text, and it will be included as text instead of a reference.   Then you can edit it as you desire (but of course further changes in the template will not appear.) LouScheffer 20:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your statement suggests that the template is not standard - and indeed it cannot be if it must be modified for each topic. PLEASE remove it. Also, you are breaking the "See Also" section style.

TeamX 07:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at the guidelines, it looks like the correct heading would be "Further reading" if there are no other external links, or "Further reading/Externals links" if there are Citing_sources, not "See also".  So that makes sense.


 * On the other hand, the use of a template until someone (such as you) links and organizes all the primary sources makes sense to me. Even then, though, the template may still be helpful.  I did exactly this with Routing (EDA) - see all the classic references down at the bottom.  However, there are thousands of other papers on routing, and telling a user where to look for them does not seem like spam to me.  This applies to almost all EDA articles - even if you have a list of primary sources, you still need to tell the user where to go to find more (Further reading).  On this topic, it's the ACM and the IEEE.  And if you need to add the same text to lots of articles, that's what templates are for.  I have absolutely no objection if someone re-writes it and removes the template, *provided* it's at least as much help to the user when looking for more information on the same topic. LouScheffer 14:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Asking others
I asked this question on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Let's see what others think. LouScheffer 05:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sunnyvale
You got into a debate a couple of years ago with a user named User:Southsanjose over Sunnyvale crime section edits. He's popped up again and made edits to the same section, although seemingly the reverse of what he did two years ago. I've posed some questions on the Sunnyvale discussion page, and I'd encourage you to submit your two cents on the topic. Jokeboy (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Odd edit to very old page
What was this edit about?  Chzz  ►  07:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)