User:Paleorthid/Worth repeating

/Articles /Categories /Log /Journal /Monobook.js /Sandbox /To do /Tools /Soil /WikiProject Soil /Vanity /Barnstars /Worth repeating

Welcome

Welcome well established new user

Hello OLDNEWUSER, I was going to supply the usual welcome to Wikipedia but I see from your contributions that you have been an intermittent contributor for quite some time. Somehow you slipped under the radar of the welcoming committee! Or perhaps you are more active in another language.

I am sure this is all superfluous, but here it is anyway:

Here are some useful links if you need any help:

You can sign posts on talk pages by entering four tildes (~~~~); the system automatically inserts your username with a datestamp. If you have any questions, see Wikipedia:Help, post a question to the Village pump, or leave a message for me here ☎. Enjoy,

User draft in category

Hello NAME. I noticed that in your scratchpad / draft / alternative article [[User:Name/Sandbox]] you have the categories still activated, so it's showing up in [[:Category:Category]] and in several others. Could I suggest that you deactivate the category links (by putting a colon before 'Category' in the link) until such time as the article is in the mainspace rather than the userspace? (As per [[WP:CG]], "If you copy an article to your user namespace (for example, as a temporary draft or in response to an edit war) you should decategorize it".) Cheers! -- ~~~~

reverting removed referenced content due to no explanation

The inline cite supports the original wording.

The edit I reverted removed referenced content with no edit summary or reason provided.

When content is removed without explanation, one should expect it to be reinstated. You are totally welcome to remove content, simply provide an edit summary explaining why. OK? Cheers! -- ~~~~

reverting changed content performed without edit summary, without discussion

Reverting test edit. (TW)
Unpublished materials are not considered reliable per WP:SOURCE

Pls discuss before removing verified content.
The inline cite supports the original wording.

Grey Water vs. Greywater

The single word Greywater looks weird to me; Grey Water looks comfortable, so I checked with Google.

"Grey Water" gets about 590,000 hits compared with 366,000 for "Greywater". "Gray Water" gets fewer hits than either, but far more than "Graywater". It appears the world agrees with me, but not strongly.

Any objection to changing the article to consistently use 'Grey Water' as the main term? --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie Lokier (talk • contribs)

You're right about google hits. I prefer greywater - maybe something to do with being a chemical engineer, that we make our common terms, such as "flowrate" into a single word. But Wikipedia isn't a specialist's resource, and it appears either is acceptable so I wouldn't object to a move. --Singkong2005 ^{(t - c - WPID)} 13:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Probation

Yes. Administrators are normal people with buttons. You don't encounter apathy and call it endorsement. Asking them for enforcement of policy is not dispute resolution. Two points: Given the choice between walking away from a naming dispute where no consensus exists and engaging in edit warring, I'll walk away, even if you think that the other is in the wrong, it is not a justification for likewise disruption. Unsuccessful mediation or refused mediation is also not a license to respond to disruption in kind. But, that's a false dichotomy, you did not only have those options. Before, I didn't just say you should have gone to mediation instead of warring, I said you should have gone through dispute resolution. I also clearly used the word instead; engaging in edit warring shows that even if you did try mediation, it didn't stop you from miconduct, which was the point. Please read WP:DR again if you think you exhausted all the options. There's one fairly obvious one (at least from my perspective): arbitration. When mediation has failed, rather than responding disruptively, you should have taken it to the next level and gone to arbcom. Before warring. Instead you were brought before arbcom not of your own voition for participating in an edit war. For which I have proposed probation, not as a punishment, but as a preventative measure for the community's own sake. Your failure to avail yourself of this dispute resolution mechanism before warring is exactly why I see your actions as disruptive and contributing to the conflict. Dmcdevit·t 03:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

About external links

Having links at all is actually a pretty low priority at Wikipedia, since (non-reference) links don't really have anything to do with having a quality encyclopedia. Wikipedia is also not a Google replacement, so the argument that it should be there for the users holds no water. A link, ideally, is only included when it offers something that could never be in the encyclopedia itself, and really, the features of CSS3 will be in the encyclopedia one day, when the spec is stable. Stated here by Saxifrage 14:30, 9 October 2006

Deletion policy notice

Found this on following a redlink (Agricultural Act of 1958). Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles written as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam.

Proof

... is a scientifically ~~unproven~~ unconfirmed method to ... (scientific terminology - material sciences do not deal in proofs)

Science at the turbulent interface

“Science,” said Texas A&M climate scientist Andrew Dessler, “is this turbulent interface between what we know and what we don’t know.”

External Links

External links should conform to WP:EL and WP:NOT. Links should go to specific information that could be in the article.

A good but informal test: If the linked page were dropped into the article would the article be good enough to be a featured article? I specifically removed the links to groups/workshops because featured articles do not contain directories of information about people making/thinking about a "thing", they contain information about the "thing" itself.

Science and scientists on WP

Lifted without alteration from a comment by user Mathewslyman at [Ars Technica]

Herein lies the split personality of Wikipedia.

I once suggested, teasingly, to Noam Chomsky, in a private discussion with him (in which I agreed to keep the details private), that he should edit Wikipedia to reflect the reality of a political controversy: his response, in other words than this, was basically that doing so would be like peeing into the wind! I studied computer science at Cambridge University, and would suggest that Chomsky's attitude toward Wikipedia is probably typical of academic and educational professionals.

Personally I prefer the culture of the German version of Wikipedia, in which evidences of real-world credentials are required in order to gain certain editorial privileges on the Web site. Perhaps a lack of due respect for educational attainment is currently the Achilles heel of the English-speaking world!

copied content within WP

edit summary should provide: copied content from page name; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. from Diannaa on Лобачев_Владимир&action 13:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)