Jump to content

User talk:Sympa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Sympa, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! 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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 19:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Kurtosis.PNG

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Kurtosis.PNG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a master of user boxes? News to me.

[edit]

Hi Sympa. I wouldn't call myself a master of userboxes, though I have managed to make a couple. Mostly if I want a userbox I look thru the galleries at the bottom of this page. They show what the usebox looks like and tells you what to type to transclude it on your page. The top of that page has instructions for grouping the userboxes.

The few times I've wanted to make a new userbox I've found one that's similar to what I want, go to the page where it is housed, click "edit", copy the code that appears, go to a page with the title I'm giving it, paste the code there and save the page (that way I always have an original to work from and revert back to if I totally screw things up). Then I modify it and make judicious use of the preview button and through trial and error eventually get it to where I'm happy with it. Then I save it. I really don't know what I'm doing with them, I just mess around until it looks right.

As for tables, I find them extremely confusing when I'm in the edit window, and avoid messing with them as much as possible. I don't think I'm quite up to creating them, much less trying to teach someone else. Help:Table has some instructions for creating a table. If you've got questions about tables, you might want to ask on the talk page for that page.

If there's anything else you want to know, ask me and I'll do my best to answer. :) ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 03:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shattered Consensus Mediation

[edit]

You have been listed as a party in this mediation. As mediator, I would welcome your input. Thanks! --nkayesmith 09:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination: Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming

[edit]

An editor has nominated the article Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Jayden54Bot 15:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Praise

[edit]

Gosh you write well, and show great perception. It's taken me years to develop skills that seem to be natural to you, and I'd still trust you over myself to observe and document, especially with people. Thanks for letting me know my comments were helpful for you.

I often find Wiki difficult. I write about sex, politics and religion, so what should I expect, lol. ;)

Actually I don't write about politics, I'm not interested in it. Unfortunately, sex and religion are politicized, that's the problem. Wiki ought to be free of censorship, not a vehicle for it. You're right about the debate pages being an outstanding feature of Wiki. I guess I'm disturbed that the "edit" link at Wiki is mainly used to delete. I'm less concerned about blatant POV pushing, at least that could stimulate positive contributions of opposing POVs and sourcing. People take the easy way and delete.

I'm concerned that a culture of "deletionism" (even when not censorship) is developing. Quantity is not mutually exclusive with quality, and deletion only improves things in cases of redundancy, which are rare. But I'm not going to go and debate this in all the right places. I'm going to stick to setting an example ... contribute and defend contributions (without "owning" them).

I have some buddies now, that helps me a lot. I don't ask them to help with issues, just let off steam sometimes.

If your contributions in RL are as quality as your contributions here, your friends are lucky. If even a fraction of what you give was returned to you, you'd be well-off indeed. Cheers Alastair Haines 05:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

[edit]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Louann Brizendine

[edit]

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Louann Brizendine, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to 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 tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You may freely add information to the page that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. G. C. Hood (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:End of world.png

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:End of world.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I am not sure what is the appropriate procedure here. The image is just the cover of a book. I contacted the author to obtain authorization of using that image. The author never responded. When I look at the cover of the book, I don't even see an explicit copyright associated with that image. Similarly, just about every Wikipedia book page has an image of the cover of the book. And, I intuit that the majority of them were not published with a documented authorization from the author. Sympa (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Halliday (scientist) moved to draftspace

[edit]

An article you recently created, Thomas Halliday (scientist), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. --Bears (talk) 07:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Thomas Halliday (scientist) (July 6)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
WP:External links should also be removed before any resubmission.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Greenman (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Sympa! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Greenman (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Thomas Halliday (scientist) (July 6)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Theroadislong (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Thomas Halliday (scientist) (July 10)

[edit]
Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by SmokeyJoe was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: This young scientist does not meet WP:NPROF. Read that guideline.

The first reference under recognition contains the following text on the subject, only: “Thomas Halliday was awarded the John C Marsden Medal for the best doctoral thesis in biology.” This is not significant coverage, if you think the subject is to be tested against the WP:GNG.

The subject specialises in mammal evolution, and yet Evolution of mammals does not mention him? Is he notable in the field of his speciality? It looks like “no”.

If you disagree, follow the advice at WP:THREE.

SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You use the Wikipedia article "Evolution of mammals" as a criteria whether an evolutionary biologist is notable or not. But, the later article is not a repository of noteworthy evolutionary biologists, but instead a taxonomy of mammals through the ages. Halliday has published and copublished a bunch of scientific articles within his scientific domains that have gotten much traction. He has also written a book on the subjects for the general public that has received an excellent reception.
In view of the above, may I invite you to reverse your decision. Sympa (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At AfD I would !vote to delete. You might read WP:DUD and WP:DRAFTOBJECT. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What he has written is not what’s important. What’s important is what others have written about him. His articles have gotten traction? Where are sources that describe that traction? He’s written a book that was well received? Is the book notable, see WP:NBOOK. Are there independent reliable sources that review the book and its author? This is a good review of the book, but it is not saying much about the author. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The three sources for the book almost provide enough demonstration of notability for the book. What they lack is contextualisation for the book alongside other books. The first review almost does this, and the second and third do not. The book is almost Wikipedia-notable, the author is not. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe, your most recent comment is pretty constructive. In all fairness, I have not read the book. So, I am at this stage not prepared to do a Wikipedia page on it. From what you are saying, it seems that it would not take much to make a Wikipedia-worthy page on it [the book].
As far as the author is concerned, I would advance that he is or should be Wikipedia worthy. He has won awards and recognitions from different relevant institutions. Earlier you said that "what he has written is not what's important", however, when you look at a lot of similar pages, the majority of their footprint on contemporary times or history regards what they have actually written.
However, I don't want to extend this debate any longer than is mutually fruitful. And, out of respectful consideration I defer to you whether you vote to delete this draft or not. Sympa (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On his awards, what matters is not the awards, but others reporting on him receiving the awards, with some comment on him and the award. What would really make the case is on independent comment comparing him to other palaeontologists. Or book writers. In the meantime, the book looks to be a hit, but what’s required are critical, contextualising reviews. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if I am not rambling on too much, on books, and awards: If you think a person is notable because of books, or awards, ask, is the book notable? Is the award notable? That is, do they have Wikipedia articles? Consider writing an article on the book, and awards. Do they have comment from independent sources? The author of multiple notable books, or the awardee of notable awards, will be presumed to be Wikipedia-notable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I very much welcome your comments. I may give a second shot on creating a page on Thomas Halliday. But, I would recreate the page pretty much from scratch with a much stronger foundation following your guidance. The foundation includes my having created a Wikipedia page on his book, "Otherlands." It also included my adding Thomas Halliday's contributions to the field of paleontology and paleobiology with another scientist in terms of furthering our understanding of mammal evolution after the dinosaurs' era. All of that is associated with many references and citations. In view of the above, I would think you would be encouraging of recreating a page on Thomas Halliday. But, if you feel otherwise please let me know upfront. I'd rather save the time now, than waste the time later :) Sympa (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Compact letter display

[edit]

Hello, Sympa,

Thank you for creating Compact letter display.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thanks for your article creation on compact letter display! Note that Wikipedia articles should not be written like a manual (WP:NOTGUIDE). I'll do some quick copy-editing, but you may want to have a look at similar articles for how to write about methods in an more 'encyclopedic' style. Femke (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Femke}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Thomas Halliday (scientist)

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Sympa. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Thomas Halliday (scientist), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Thomas Halliday (scientist)

[edit]

Hello, Sympa. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Thomas Halliday".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 04:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sympa&oldid=1191114795"