User talk:Skyerise: Difference between revisions

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Hi Yworo.
First of all thanks for your contributions in Murry Hope, was very nice. I have appreciated your help and everybody else contributing. Would be fantastic if everybody did real contributions like you (It’s pretty aggressive the attitude of some people in Wikipedia, I don’t believe Wikipedia can survive if that don’t change in short term).
I still can’t believe that “Murry” was wrong spelled as well as “Egypt”. I need some sleep. Regarding the issue of “Living people” I suspect that the name “Murry Hope” might be a pseudonym. Would be necessary find a birth certificate to confirm (I couldn’t find one).

The article now also has been improved with much more references (more than enough, likely). Obviously you know that it is a worth article, you spent your time in it. Would be possible also you put your “keep” in discussion: (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murry_Hope#Murry_Hope)? But please be comfortable, doesn’t matter if you don’t want.
You are welcome, needing a help for an article call me (I will do my best). Best, Hour of Angels (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those loose references I had left for incorporating when had some available time (seemed ok but ...). Already it's been done by that time, but has been very hard to me manage time to take care that.

I didn’t know that, thanks for the tip message.

Your clarification (keep) was realistic, informative and eloquent. A light that illuminates.Hour of Angels (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what a hard work you had for put all those ISBNs (only for proving a point to uninformed people). Honestly I agree articles should have good references but without extremes. You know, if one day Wikipedia “finishing” its project then will not exist any encyclopedia available for consulting (unhappily). I mean the biggest French encyclopedia already ended because of free Wikipedia. So, when this day arrives and someone wants to write an article about Shakespeare, he cannot because there are only primary and secondary sources in the world. (???)

Anyway, it is a pleasure to see good prevailing. Congratulations to everyone (and in a special manner to you). But I don’t get it one thing: Of course the article can continuing always being improved but essentially the discussion it is over, the article was assumed OK. So, the tags (asking references and copy-edit) could be removed, right? Best, Hour of Angels (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yworo. Actually we have an especial case here. Without doubt was necessary to include the publishers and ISBNs in that list of works for helping to prove the relevance of the author (for clarifying a point to uninformed people). However, that is a list of literary works not is a bibliography. You know, bibliography is a list of source materials (most books) used in the preparation of a scholarly article; i.e., references (bibliography) are used for justifying assertions in the body text. Therefore in theory ISBNs usually are not showed in a historic list of personal accomplishments by author unless you really want to supply maxim information as much possible to the reader (but rarely a reader cares about ISBNs). Besides, according to Manual of Style (footnotes) when you want to supplement contents (for instance more details just like those) you do exactly what was done: you create a dedicated section for those notes (named “Notes” and separated from references section, because they not are references). But sometimes some articles just consider references and notes being the same thing (but rigorously that not is correct, they are in fact distinct things). By the way, the abbreviation used (n.b.) meant exactly that: take notice (nota bene in Latin).

However Yworo, that is my personal perception (and it can be wrong). What matters is that you deserve to do what you think best (you saved this article). Glad to see that you really care to do a good job, that is what counts, so it's all right. Best, Hour of Angels (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the time to check our Manual of Style. The section on bibliographies, what they should include, and suggestions on formatting can be found here. In general, when publication details are included, which they needed to be for this author, they are included in the bibliography itself. There is no provision in the MoS for footnoting these details. Yworo (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)r[reply]

Ok Yworo, please let me say: it is all about personal perceptions. Personally usually I don’t’ see relevance in ISBNs for a list of works (considering from point of view by most readers), however technically all you did was absolutely correct. See, the manual also allows to put a list of works in a soft way, which regularly it is my first option because otherwise visually we have a swollen text, i.e. unnecessarily and esthetically terrible. But everyone has an opinion, we don’t have do agree with every thing because we not are programmed robots and Wikipedia not is a sect. Now about the my mention about “Notes section”, in fact we don’t have that virtually written (in English Wikipedia) but are implicit around here: Explanatory notes.

At last, like I already have said, you more than proved your good intentions, so I can easy compromise my preferences in favor of yours, you are welcome! Hour of Angels (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Typically, author bibliographies are done the same as reference bibliographies. I find the ISBNs quite useful. Have you followed the ISBN links? From there you can look up the book in Worldcat or dozens of vendors including Amazon and Amazon UK, among others. I agree that it doesn't look as nice. Some of those lines could be shortened by putting republications on a second line preceded by "**" to indent it under the first edition. I almost did that when I added all the pub data. While the softer lists are allowed, due to the way things work on Wikipedia, eventually someone will add the publication data and ISBNs to make for completeness. I think adding the pub data probably contributed significantly to the deletion discussion, with folks who might have added a delete !vote deciding to leave well enough alone after looking at those added details... Yworo (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was actually pretty well known in the 70s and 80s, remember to do a Google News search in the archives before prodding. Prod is only for uncontroversial deletion. Fences&Windows 21:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, looked pretty dismal at the time I put the prod on it. Yworo (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. You've got a Kilroy was here userbox, did you know about {{User kilroy was here}}? Fences&Windows 22:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was aware of it, but specifically wanted to use the image of Kilroy as a band-pass filter diagram. Yworo (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a cool pic. Researching the history of Kilroy was here was really interesting. Fences&Windows 18:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to let you know that I have mentioned you here. I am not calling for any action to be taken against you. I am merely expressing my concerns over the thread that transpired here. I just thought I should tell you that you have been mentioned, nothing more. Bus stop (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not change much. Only reason why i did any thing is because i saw it needed changes and the actual categories them self say they need changes. It did not affect anything really. I wont do it no more.Program Death (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This file File:Hopper Rider.jpg that you commented on at FfD has been re-listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 28#File:Hopper Rider.jpg Please see the discussion to see why this is. Skier Dude (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yworo, how are you? You have helped me with several issues (few time ago), now recently I had an unexpected problem, may ask you for some help again, guidance and advice in this list of doubts?

1- An article in Wikipedia can be written using famous paintings (under public domain) as essential and most part of it? I mean the subject it is not directly about painting but they have implicated relations. So, may I use them not only for article’s illustration but also as a massive and important part of it? If yes, an editor can immediately (without any discussion) remove these images (and esthetically wrecking the article) if he has another point of view? (vandalism?)
2- An editor can immediately (without any previous discussion) remove parts (script) of an article if he has another point of view over some (referenced) sentence? (vandalism?)
3- When an editor claims that didn’t find a reference (even if it near exists in the article), he can immediately remove the paragraph without first asking for it? (vandalism?)
4- A text (supposed with neutral point of view) with a statement made in a valid reference can simply be removed because the editor has another personal interpretation for it? (vandalism?)
5- A non-English reference is it a valid reference? If yes, an editor can immediately remove a paragraph if didn’t find an English reference? (vandalism?)
6- Any editor can judge and decide (according to his personal believes and grade of knowledge) what is related (or not) to an article and immediately remove without first discussing the question? (vandalism?)
7- An editor can remove parts (with multiple references) of an article leaving other parts with orphaned references? (vandalism?)
8- If a reference (of another part) was misplaced in a sentence, an editor can immediately erase the sentence without first ask for a revision? (vandalism?)
9- Is it usual a steady Wikipedia’s article (constantly improved by numerous users and created many months or years ago) suddenly (in one only day, probably by same person with several usernames) be flooded with impolite demands and amputated like described here?

Thanks Yworo, these are very important and determinant questions to me (and to many others editors, for sure). The affected article in question concerns the subject of ethereal entities (gods, spirits, angels, etc.), now seriously wrecked. Hour of Angels (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]