User talk:Hour of Angels: Difference between revisions

Welcome!

Hello, Hour of Angels, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Friday (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the article Ghost beings, in fact the name is very similar to Ghost article. However the article Ghost beings focuses on another subject (involving others beings besides ghosts). May be the better solution to avoid further confusion should be improve the article.(Hour of Angels 26 January 2011)

Continuing to recreate your article under a different name is not helpful. It's unclear that this is a separate topic from legendary creature. Is there some difference between the two? You may want to improve the existing article rather than starting your own. Friday (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has many issues and is not yet ready for article space. I have moved it for now, to User:Hour of Angels/Ethereal beings. Friday (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

₌₌₌₌₌₌ Friday, the article not is about legendary creatures. It is about common features of only ethereal creatures (made of mystic energy). I will give you examples: werewolves, living-deads, vampires, mummies, etc regularly not are ethereal creatures but are legendary creatures.
I see this inside of Wikipedia’s rules, but I agree it is not perfect. However the world wiki-editors can make it in time.
I was planning new articles (translations) from French Wikipedia related with this moved article by you. I wasn’t expecting this, so I stopped the new articles for now because I don’t want waste time. I know you are doing your work but the fact is I am old and have little time so may I ask you when the moved article will have a final position (be restored or deleted)?
Thank you, for your attention, _{Hour of Angels (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)}.[reply]
₌₌₌₌₌₌

That's not just up to me. Anyone could come along and move the article if they think it's not ready for article space. How do you know which creatures are "ethereal" or not? The problem is, that very distinction relies on knowledge that (I assume) does not actually exist, anywhere in the world. My fear is that any attempt to classify nonexistent creatures is going to heavily rely on original research. What happens when another editor comes along who disagrees with your taxonomy? Are there going to be reliable sources that tell us who is correct? I could easily assert that vamps are ethereal and how on earth could you possible produce a source telling us otherwise? Friday (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friday take a moment please. As I said, the subject is to expose the common characteristics recorded in literature, etc. About your question: It is not up to me, the editor, decide what is ethereal or not (I didn’t make a taxonomy). Therefore the records speak by themselves (they do that). From that the article lists, shows, describes these frequent features and their relationship with cultures, doctrines, etc. The article only describes what is found in the references. When the article uses the word “class”, “kind”, etc means something in common found in books, etc and not made by my own interpretation. Your comment about vampires (at least the popular vampire) is not congruent with records (so, wasn’t a good example). Even so, you made a point and I totally agree can be thin the separation between a solid entity and an ethereal entity. Indeed this is mentioned in the first lines of the article (take a look). But bottom line, unfortunately again the name of the article brings confusion.

So, I will follow your orientation, change the approach (starting by the name) of the article, adapt the contents and re-publish. Now, I am really considering your suggestion (legendary creature) as a better name inside the article. But I will sleep on that.

Friday, don’t get me wrong, even bringing to me some disappointment I appreciated your considerations in this wikijob. If Wikipedia weren’t good I wouldn’t use my time for it.Hour of Angels (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friday, I leaved this message here and not in your Talk´page because are only comments.
Last week your concerns took me seriously to researching again the records and references about “ethereals” (checking the consistency). What became a good thing because made feasible improve the article with more references and noteworthy contents. On the other hand, got possible considerer “ethereal” as relative of “legendary creature”, but in truth according to the records, the subject (Ethereal) deserve own space because have particular identity and large development. Actually there are many articles in Wikipedia under those same conditions (for instance, “Alien”, and many others – unnecessary mention because you certainly realize it) and yet they continue to have own presence because put all information in only one spot would be too confuse. Separate large themes (of same root) always is a good idea because is more organized and thus approachable (to readers).

See, our task as editors, is only gathering, enhancing and publishing registered information (you know). Hence, the article while available to readers (for one week), already was being improved by editors (and welcome, apparently). And I see that very positively, after all Wikipedia is a democratic place for adding sections (with references, of course) from authors with distinct views. Different views enrich any article. In fact there are hundreds of articles in Wikipedia like that. So, I am sure that giving time to editors work on it (5th pillar), the article will be very good and plentiful.
Thanks for the considerations, _{(talk) 09:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)}.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murry Hope 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murry Hope 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. RadioFan (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I see that you yourself have not registered a formal keep vote. You should do so, with a disclaimer that you wrote the article. When there is no consensus, the article is kept. While a deletion discussion is not a vote, having equally split opinions tends to result in the article being kept. Yworo (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article was discussed and considered OK, an appropriated article to Wikipedia. Thanks everyone for helping. Hour of Angels

Hello, Hour of Angels. You have new messages at Yworo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please do not undo my policy-based edits when you make your additions. Please also note that we do no use the html "br" tag, we leave a blank line. Also, we do not apply any special formatting to blockquotes or poetry. We do not make such quotatation bold, or italic, or small. We use the correct tags or templates and let our built-in formatting give articles a consistent appearance.

Making copies of articles in personal space is not very useful. When you paste your work in you undo the work of all the editors since you made the copy. That's not permitted. You can't undo my edits when adding your references and material, and I will completely revert you every time you edit in such a rude and inconsiderate fashion. I spent quite some time bringing the images and formatting into alignment with the image use policy and the Manual of Style. Yworo (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The copies in my personal space are used only to comparisons, tests and analysis. That reverted version in main space was not pasted from that personal area. They were two distinct versions between differences and similarities. The reverted version placed in main space saved most images you had resized; fixed the uncompleted sentences left by previous editors; and likewise all the previous solicitations for more references and grammar revision were supplied. In spite of few images of horizontal complexion had been slightly enlarged (now undone), others were still more shrunk. Usually the world editors from Wikipedia, have different approaches, some are more technical than others, which imply that mistakes normally can happen. Your formatting edits are welcomed; if some ones were incorrectly changed, please always assume that made in good faith. Hour of Angels (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]