This is an archive of past discussions about User:Vox Rationis. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Note: The following messages began as a response to {{subst:stubsort}} placed on a user's talk page. The result is:
Hello,
Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can. Thanks!--Vox Causa
After trying several combinations of video game and stub variations, I decided I'd leave as is and let the stub patrol take care of it.--Light of Shadow01:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course, thats understandable. If you ever come across the need of a stub category, I would highly reccommend Category:Stub categories. It has the full list, and its what I use when stub sorting. By the way, the "video game stub" tag is cvg-stub, for future reference. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!--Vox Causa01:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello
You have recently posted on my talk page that I should use a stub template. I have looked through the list a few hours ago and couldn't find an appropriate one for this article. If you do find one, feel free to edit my entry. It was a new page (see talk).
Thanks
By the way, do you participate in the Repairing link to disambiguation page - You can help! project?
FirefoxRocks02:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
To answer your question, no, I do not. I typically just fix them when I come across them, but thanks for identifying this project to me, I will certainly take a look at it, and I might join.--Vox Causa02:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
True. Btw, I've been constantly reverting stuff from both Mainland and Lakeland pages. Its nice to see someone take care of those two pages. Keep up the great work! -xCentaur | talk 22:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I (personally attending Mainland High School) find it embarrassing hat our students feel the need to vandalize the rivals page after one lost football game. I was also embarrassed that many other schools had a decent page, and our was vandalized by our own students. By the way, i caught another of your stubs at Joseph Toye, just to let you know.--Vox Causa22:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
LOL. yes, but you'll notice I've nominated that page for deletion. Seems like nonsense to me. If it isnt, then its definitely a stub, worth rewriting at that. :P -xCentaur | talk 22:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm away that it's better to use a specific stub type. (I occasionally do a bit of stub-sorting myself.) However, when I'm browsing using the random button, I tend to use the generic stub/cleanup/wikify tags to flag the problems, and leave finding a suitable stub tag to someone who is already in "stub-sorting" mood. Bluap22:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi - thanks for the info about stub templates. I've seen these in other articles, but wasn't sure how to create them. More to the point, though, I hope it was appropriate of me to create the article (stub) in the first place, but I think that if the group is going to be referenced in other articles in Wikipedia, it should be the subject of its own. DigitalEnthusiast22:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC) ( PS - This seems like a far cry from my enthusiasm for all things digital, but I'm trying to help the Wikipedia project in general, more than stick to my area of interest. )
As a corollary, I've marked these three articles as needing verification of sources. I am not doubting your article's factual basis, but you need sources to back it up. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!--Vox Causa03:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey Vox, I did not write any of those articles. I found them as a single article here with a {{split}} tag. I just acted boldly and split them up. If you have an issue with any factual info contained within those articles you'll have to discuss it with the various editors. Best of luck in your quest, tschuess. Naufana : talk04:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Stub sorting
Hi Vox, thanks for message regarding stub sorting. I have previously contributed in that area so I understand the use of specific templates :) Alas, I didn't have time to search for the more relevant template during my random editing! Mushintalk04:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Seth Mumy
Thanks for the link to the stub templates page. I wanted to use a more detailed stub, but couldn't find the page; finding stuff like that on WP can be a real pain sometimes. Darguz Parsilvan13:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi again! No problem. I am not too well oriented with stubs, but I looked in the link you gave me and changed the bio-stub to academic-bio-stub + Philippines-writer-stub, if that's okey with you. Anyway, happy editing! --24.24.187.104 01:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Sorry about that. My wireless laptop just logs me out all the time! --Pinay0601:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Zapfino
Although I know a person who is a user here, I did not know that and will use that template in all font related articles that are stubs. Thanks. 76.188.7.8301:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can.
Thanks, sort of, for your msg re: stub sorting. Unfortunately, due to a mispelling you sorted into a non-existant stub category, and even if you hadn't, well, it would have been in the wrong category, because the place isn't a school. I'd say if you're not sure what category an article belongs in, it's better not to sort it....
See you around. ike989814:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Neuroscience is a little bit better than medical, and I could live with that. Even that is a bit too restrictive a category; much of what they focus on really isn't neuroscience. Anyway, if you want to sort it into that category it is fine with me. ike989801:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
No problems, but AWB just recognises a short article that needs expanding. I must admit I didn't pay it much attention, and didn't think about the type but you might find there's about four or five that I did earlier on this evening. Cheers Khukri(talk . contribs)22:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Stub Again
Normally I do search for the correct stub, but I was lazy this time and not too enthusiastic about the topic. Thanks for catching it. TeamZissou23:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip on more specific stubs. Until now, I just sort of guessed or grabbed a stub that I saw used elsewhere. -- Whpq00:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for contacting me. Actually, I don't work much with stub sorting, and I'd probably have trouble in finding the best one for this. I added the raw {{stub}} just to make sure that it wouldn't appear too much like a speedy deletion candidate for having just a sentence on it.--Húsönd01:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Pinay06 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
thanks for the suggestion but im dyslexic and looking thru those things are really hard for him to do and i get lost, sowwy =) but if im writing a bunch ofa certain type of article and havnt figured out the particular stud type just tell me and that'll be helbful, cheers!Qrc200604:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
As for me and stubs
I tend to just stub unsorted, to avoid stubbing inappropriately, unless I happen to know the stub name. I do appreciate you work to stub sort, though. Best, Kukini06:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
'bot stub-tagging
Actually, last night I only tagged 72 stubs, since at that point it was on a "trial run": I think that some people from another cleanup project were doing a significant amount of stub-tagging, too. (I'm tagging a few more now, though.) There seemed to be general agreement at WT:WSS about tagging the 'hidden backlog' with stub, but if you have any comments about doing that, or about the rate at which they're being done, you might want to weigh in there. I agree that it would be good if the 'bot could also sort the stubs, but a) it can't, and I don't know of any plausible way it could be done; and b) even if it could at 99% accuracy, I'd get more negative feedback about the 1% error than positive about the correctly-tagged rest.
BTW, I hope you don't mind me saying so, but retagging from {{stub}} to {{bio-stub}} is pretty minimalist as far as stub-sorting is concerned. Just about every country has a <country>-bio-stub, and it's also desirable to tag someone with their occupation/source of notability. Otherwise, Category:People stubs would get as over-large as Category:Stubs very quickly. Alai13:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi-
Your name does not mean voice of reason. Right now it says "Voise Cause". Latin is an inflected language which shows grammatical relationship between nouns by means of different endings to the nominative verb form. In this case, the sense in which you mean of demands a genitive case. This would be manifest with an e on the end of causae (genitive is abbreviated gen.).
Then we move on to semantics. Causa means reason more like "impetus" or "cause". Reason in the sense of reasoning is more ratio or mens, the genitive forms of which would be rationis and mentis respectively. If you mean what I think you mean, you'd prefer Vox Rationis.
Compare, if you would the google hits for:
Thanks for the explanation. I will probably change the definition on my talk page. I took two years of Latin in middle school(intermediate school, before secondary school, or high school), but that has faded away since then. My current user name was just a quick online translation, as a previous user name(same thing, except in English) bore too close a resemblance to another Wikipedian. I doubt I will change user names, as I already have a substantial amount from edits to this account. Thanks again, though, for the information, and thanks for editing Wikipedia!--Vox Causa03:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
You can ask a bureaucrat to transfer your account. That way your edits will stay yours. Please, man. Respect the language, it is so often mistreated on wikipedia.--Ioshus(talk)04:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reccomendation, I now have a new correct name. I have a respect for all languages, and I cannot stand to misuse them. I would certainly hate to go around editing Wikipedia with a false name. Thanks again!--Vox Rationis20:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, why wasn't I welcomed to Wikipedia when I creatde my userpage? Please write a short welcome message at the top of my Talkpage!Superboy8818:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what the hell you did, but you certainly blanked some content on Josip Broz. I was not blanking anything but cleaning garbage and organizing the discussion page and I guess you thought you had to screw me up so I have to waste time writing this instead of working on wiki. Now that you totally screwed up the history, I can't figure out how to revive the content that dissappeared after your rev. What a waste of energy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gbajramo (talk • contribs) 06:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
Firstly breathe, and try to remember an "assumption of good faith". Now, let me explain, I was doing vandal-monitoring through recent changes, noticed that you seemed to have removed a huge section of a talk page, and automatically assumed that you were removing sections that you didn't agree upon, which is against wikipedia's policy. If that is what you were doing, than, oh well. However, if you were deleting your own posts, or archiving others(which would have been nice to mention in the edit summary, instead of simply cleanup)that is fine, and I can revert my edit if you send me a link.I would also like to remind you that talk pages shouldn't really be sorted...the only form of maintenance to be used is Archiving, as mentioned above...all other forms are highly discouraged.--Vox Rationis06:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your concern. However it may be a good idea to ask before exing someones work. The page I'm working on is notorios for editorial wars due to POVs and has been bloated with opinions and counter opinions with no value to the article. I have requested permission from other page editors to clean up the content on this page and post some guidelines to ease the edit burden. Rather than delete POVs I have created a POV section and I'm moving POV junk there so it's not in the way of other relevant discussions. I have deleted a few posts which have no value at all and archiving them makes no sense. As you can see from the history I have made atomic changes and not bulk deletes so on any objections by authors the content can be easily restored.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbajramo (talk • contribs)
Firstly, please don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes "~~~~". Secondly, it seemed to me, when scanning many of your edits, that you deleted huge sections of them discussion. While I personally do not think WP is the place for such discussions, and would love to delete them, they must be preserved for posterity. If you wish to "prune" the talk pages, I am sure you can, as long as you archive most of the old, instead of simply deleting...To revert any edits of mine you may disagree with, simply go to the history tab, select the version you want, click edit, and save(leave an edit description, saying "revert" or something). If there is any way I can help, like pointing you to the right policy articles, feel free to ask, and I apologize for any inconvenience that i may have caused in my haste.Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!--Vox Rationis06:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Reversion Tools
Thanks for the help in reverting Evolution and my talk page. Quite a nasty vandal. I'm semi-new to the vandal reversion scene, and I noticed your edit summaries are standardized. I've just used "rvv" for "revert: vandalism", however, I was wondering if you use a script in the "monobook.js" file in order to produce this edit summary. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!--Vox Rationis14:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually as an admin I have access to "Rollback" which allows for a one-button revert, though you're generally only supposed to use it on vandalism. It produces the edit summary. There are scripts, but I have never used any of them.Good job on the reverts and warning. Guettarda14:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I decided today to try my hand at vandalism reversions using the "recent changes", and I was fairly quick, but 4 out of 5 have already been reverted by you by the time I click history! Number one, kudos for your tireless effort, and number two, how are you so quick(as I might want to speed up my process as well)...Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!--Vox Rationis02:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, trying to revert vandalism through Recent Changes is quite slow. I've written my own software to help me; others use similar software, or scripts from within their web browser. User:AzaToth seems to be using something called "TwinkleFluff" that works in a web browser, you might want to ask him about that – Qxz02:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The Unicist Research Institute
The The Unicist Research Institute had been blanked by its original author. The rule book says that this can be taken as a request to delete. For future reference please note that if you put an {{AfD}} tag on an article you must complete the other two stages of the AfD process. -- RHaworth00:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
My apologies for not noticing the author and forgetting the {{afd}} process. It did not occur to me that it was the author as he should have used {{db-author}} instead of {{prod}} and citing it as advertising. (Of course, this raises the question as to whether or not he should have made it if only to delete it as advertising, but that is not mine to ask or understand). Also, thank you for reminding me of the {{afd}} process, as I've used it in the past, but must have forgotten as of late. Thanks for editing Wikipedia!--Vox Rationis00:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
"New Messages"
Not to be a "party pooper", and I don't intend to report this, but you can get in serious trouble for fake "new messages" boxes, as per WP:USER. You have been advised, and you may take it as you wish.--Vox Rationis03:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to revise my statement. There was recently as heated debate about his policy, as someone added it without consensus. I has since been moved to "discouraged," with the following text: "The Wikipedia community generally frowns upon simulating the MediaWiki interface, and it should be avoided." So, technically speaking, you can put it back up if you wish, as long as no one complains (and for the record, I never complained, just informed).--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 05:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
We usually don't protect from recreation if it's only been recreated once. If it is made again, I probably will then protect the page for recreation. Thanks, Nishkid6401:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Scienific journals
Dear Vox Rationis, please excuse the earlier sarcastic comments of an obviously inexperienced editor, as well as his less-than-competant job of writing the article--I dont blame you in the least for the speed given the apparent quality. Let me try to give a fuller explanation.
The people who work on science articles here are indeed adding articles for every peer-reviewed journal, giving priority to those that have been mentioned in WP articles. There are about 1,000 such articles now, and there will be about 10,000 in science, (and another 5 or 6,000 academic journals in the social sciences and humanities.) Every single one of them is Notable, within their sphere: they are used as the basis by which WP establishes notability, they are listed and described in standard works off references and indexed by standard well-known indexes, and this meets the formal requirements. The details come from publishers' web sites, as is appropriate per WP:Web and the practice for books, movies etc.
This is a very small percentage of the content of WP--less than 1%. In general, I think it's fair to say that WP under-represents academic subjects and over-represents popular culture. Speaking for myself, I am very glad that WP provides an extensive high-quality source for pop culture, --both the aspects that I care about and the ones I do not care about. But the same is true with other subjects--classical music, the traditional fine arts, non-contemporary literature, as well as the academic world. I'm often at AfD, and I never argue about rock music or video games, because I quite frankly do not understand the criteria, and almost none of them are notable to me. But I am glad the articles are there if I do want to find out about something.
There is a WP project for this , with the working page at Wikipedia:List of missing journals. But if you do not agree with the general principle, the best place to discuss it is at WP:Notability (science), and I and those more experienced than I will be glad to listen and respond.
But please don't go about speedying them as individual titles, for every single one of them will be contested; none of these deletions are uncontroversial, and they therefore none of them fall in a CSD category. The overuse of speedy will possibly result in the ending or drastic limitation of the procedure--for this is being serious advocated, though not by me-- and I care about this because I think it a very useful procedure in many instances. If you should come across one that you don't think should be included, certainly you should say so, but probably the appropriate thing to do would be to PROD it so the action will be visible and others can see it. That's what I do if I think something NN. DGG05:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for informing me. I had just finished adding a comment to an article about a completely non-notable (and no longer existent) website. I was patrolling the new pages list, which tends to be filled with non-notable articles. I came across the article in question, and saw it as non-notable(as it asserted NO notability), and possibly considered "little or no context", these categories being CSD:A7 and CSD A1,(as seen here). I tend to be a little on the deletionist side, mostly because I value the overall quality of Wikipedia. Thus I marked it for deletion, but it did not qualify for deletion after you merged it into an article worth saving.(have to leave now, on a schedule, might post more later)--Vox Rationis14:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, as I have nominated several pages for deletion, I can't keep track of these pages. If I did nominate it, it was probably because it was either non-notable, spam (advertising and/or links), attack/disparage, or nonsense. Please see WP:SPEEDY for any other reasons i might have been deleted. Again, I apologize for my lack of memory on this subject, but it was probably a legitimate delete, as an administrator would have supported it. If you can rewrite the page in such a way that it does not fall under any of these categories, please, do so. Feel free to contact me if you have any other questions!--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 16:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I rewrote the page as Live At Perkins' Palace instead... sorry for the confusion. Veniyanwarrior 01:58, February 17, 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering what to do at this page. Firstly, it would be nice if you provided an edit summary with each edit. Next, as you blanked the page after creating it, I'm wondering why. If you intend to rewrite it, then go ahead. If you want it deleted then add {{db-author}} to mark it for speedy deletion. If it was simply a test, that is alright, but I would implore you to use the [WP:SB|sandbox]] instead the next time. You may leave me a message on my talk page here.
Also, it would be nice if you sign each comment you make on talk pages (such as this one or mine)with four tildes(~~~~). Don't worry about the confusion, it happens...--Vox Rationis02:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Trade documentation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 00:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, for the sake of curiosity, how would I get to know the speedy deletion user. Would that be you? I wonder why the user did not take some time to write some thing from the link I provided instead of electing the stub for deletion. Please, check the article's talk page.--Sdudah01:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I would be the user requesting deletion. This article is a candidate for speedy deletion, under "Criteria for Speedy Deletion: A3" (found here). The exact text is as follows:
3. No content whatsoever. Any article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections), a rephrasing of the title, and/or attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title. This does not include disambiguation pages.
As you may see, your article Trade documentation falls under that category. If you can expand the article to become a stub, please do so. Also, if you feel the page should not be deleted, you may ad the following text to the article to contest the deletion:
