User talk:Wareh
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia
Hello, Wareh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: The five pillars of Wikipedia, How to edit a page, Help pages, Tutorial, How to write a great article, Manual of Style. 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! --Tone 21:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, I have figured this out now! Wareh 21:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Coffee Preparation
Hello! Instead of the link you added to this article, do you think you have the time to incorporate any additional info it has? If it has a lot of info that the article doesn't, it would be really good to improve the article. If not, it doesn't really add a lot to people's understanding of the subject. Just a thought. I'm rabidly anti-link! Skittle 18:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I sympathize. I added this link, because in the course of improving the entry Napoletana coffee, I realized that the FAQ had more detailed information about the variety of brewing methods and their proper classification than has yet been incorporated into this Wiki article. So let's leave the link there as a stimulus to someone who can do a good job of enhancing the article to the point where it can be deleted as superflous. Wareh 19:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] OBL
Please do not put garbage in the articles. Thank you. DS 02:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I honestly didn't think that was garbage. If the article is going to have a whole section on that deranged woman's ludicrous fiction, it should have a sentence with a reputable source at least giving the substance of her ravings, n'est-ce pas? Wareh 03:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- If we're going to be referring to something so peculiar on the grounds that it's in Harper's, you'll have to provide the issue and page number. Thanks. DS 23:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Done! I haven't included it on the grounds that it's in Harper's, I've included it because it's vivid information as to how Boof actually describes the subject of the article. The rest of the Boof stuff in the article is in the category "fiction that gets to stay in Wiki because a source can be cited." In a just world, Boof's role in this article goes down to two sentences: a vivid representation of her own delusional statements, and the comment that she is generally regarded as delusional. I've provided the first half of this. Wareh 14:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] AD vs. CE
Although i disagree with you I appreciate your comments on the proposed policy page. But, you need to know that the discussion of this proposal pretty much ended over a year ago - it was clear that the proposal would not be accepted, the proposal was defeated, although the vote was relatively close. My point is, it is a dead issue. Preference for dating system is to be determined by those people active in editing a given article. Around that time editors on several religion related articles reached an entirely informal and unofficial compromise which was that articles about Christianity or privileging a Christian POV would use BC and AD, articles on Jewish or Muslim, Hindu, Zoroastrian etc. topics would use BCE and CE, and articles representing the views of different faiths including Christianity would use both systems. This has been a pretty stable arrangement for the past year. I want to reiterate that it is not a rule but rather a way for editors of diverse views to get along with one another and move on to actual content. the actual policy is, both systems are allowed, it is up to the editors of a given article.Slrubenstein | Talk 22:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I sort of realized it was a defunct discussion. Just thought I'd add another perspective to the record. I think an informal and flexible policy is certainly the right solution in practical terms, and I do sympathize with the desire to avoid inappropriate religious biases, as I hope is evident, despite my quirky opinion on this point. Wareh
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism of Protagoras
At User talk:168.10.112.2, you apparently blocked the user for vandalism on 4 August 2006. The user blatantly vandalized Protagoras today, and I'm wondering if the IP address oughtn't to be reblocked. (It serves multiple users through the Georgia Dept. of Ed., but the contribution history seems mostly vandalism.) Wareh 14:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- As the last warning was a blatant vandal tag, I have reblocked the IP vandal for one week. Thanks for letting me know! You can report these vandal attacks at WP:AIV, which may get a quicker response than leaving a message on an individual's Talk page. Regards, (aeropagitica) 14:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sappho
The "long" mark follows the "p" in Sappho because it is geminated. --Macrakis 22:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I see. Thanks! Wareh 23:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
