Misplaced Pages

User talk:Hmains: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:13, 2 February 2009 editHodja Nasreddin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers31,217 edits →Now I remember you← Previous edit Revision as of 14:22, 3 February 2009 edit undoMulder8281 (talk | contribs)441 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 241: Line 241:
***Thank you for reply. I still think you should self-revert because you probably violated 3RR rule, just as Russavia. However, I decided not to report anything to 3RR at this point.] (]) 22:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC) ***Thank you for reply. I still think you should self-revert because you probably violated 3RR rule, just as Russavia. However, I decided not to report anything to 3RR at this point.] (]) 22:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
::::Thank you. I had to comment at WP:3RR after a report by another user.] (]) 02:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC) ::::Thank you. I had to comment at WP:3RR after a report by another user.] (]) 02:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

== Edits to Notable Korean Americans page ==
Could you explain to me why all of these deleted topics are not part of the inclusion criteria? Though a number are not noted individuals and should be removed, many have wikipedia pages and others are mentioned in numerous articles (online and otherwise). Why have these specific entries been removed?
14:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:22, 3 February 2009

Welcome

Policies and guidelines (list)
Principles
Content policies
Conduct policies
Other policy categories
Directories

   Discussion Conventions

  • Please post new messages at the bottom of the page to prevent confusion.
  • Please sign your comments. Type ~~~~ after your text or use the edit toolbar.
  • Please use section headings to separate conversation topics.

See: Welcome to Misplaced Pages, FAQ, Wikiquette, Be nice, and Talk page guidelines.

Hope you enjoy contributing to Misplaced Pages. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

Welcome!! --Gurubrahma 19:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

info

Misplaced Pages:Lists

Maintenance note

I maintain this page by deleting items over 30 days old. Thanks Hmains 16:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Monobook

You may wish to make use of a 'Dates' tab in edit mode that will help with unlinking unnecessary date links. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. It also provides a 'Units' tab. If you know what you are doing, you can copy and modify the subfiles as you wish. I just thought you might be interested. Regards. bobblewik 20:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason it fails is because you refer to User:Hmains/monobook.js/dates.js and User:Hmains/monobook.js/unitformatter.js and these articles do not exist. You have two options:
Try again. I am happy to walk you through the process. So feel free to ask me again. bobblewik 12:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


info

Misplaced Pages:Categorization Misplaced Pages:Categories, lists, and series boxes Template:Americans

Excellent work: Barnstar for you

RE: Thank you for being the wikipedia restoration expert :) on so many articles about the Philippines. I keep seeing you everywhere. ;)

The Original Barnstar
This barnstar, the first on Misplaced Pages, is given to recognise particularly fine contributions to Misplaced Pages, to let people know that their hard work is seen and appreciated. Thanks for cleaning up so many articles! Travb (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

An Award

The Minor Barnstar
For your work on minor edits over numerous articles, including mine. Congratulations! Chris 16:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Misplaced Pages and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

Harrison-HB4026 01:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You've done great categorization work

File:Interlingual Barnstar.png The Geography Barnstar
For all of the great work you've done in categorizing articles in Category:Geography. Thanks! Many people appreciate your work! hike395 13:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Well,Sir... I too offer my Kudo's. I know how diligent your recent efforts have been. You probably know, that after You, or the others started the "Nat'l History" stuff, I then did all U.S. states, then Canada, Mexico. I did the Trees of, the "Birds of",, and I started down into "Central America", I turned the corner into the "Caribbean", but went back to "South America", first. I am actually pretty amazed how some of the Caribbean stuff turned-out, (and S. America-plus I tried some of the "Regions of" stuff) since I had no real Guideposts to go by.
Anyhow, I apllaud your diligence,.... and know-(as the Cognizant word used in the "Amarna letters") that I went through some of the states, provinces, mexico states, "What links here" page—by—page-(so I went thru 10's of 1000's of links) until finding things. I won the lottery on the Guatemalan magnolia. It ended up in the Category:Trees of Guatemala, but also Category:Indicator species of North America, (for the Cloud forest). So Dear,Sir... carry on, and have future enjoyable trips!... Michael (from the SonoranDesert(s), ..Arizona -Mmcannis 14:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I third this! Having delved briefly into editing wikipedian categories I was quickly discouraged by the complexity and mess of it all. Nice work where others (me) fear to tread. Pfly 06:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Category Conservatives

Why are you removing this category from numerous pages? ► RATEL ◄ 05:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Conservatives

Hmains, are you aware that Category:American conservatives has been deleted multiple times? If so, why have you created Category:American Roman Catholic conservatism (and other similar ones) and populated it with people articles? This is essentially "American Roman Catholic conservatives"—to me that appears to be a categorization scheme that would have been a subcategory of Category:American conservatives.

I don't think so, so I did not do that. Hmains (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, did not do what? And do you mean you don't think "American Roman Catholic conservatives" would be a subcategory of Category:American conservatives if it existed? Or you don't think Category:American Roman Catholic conservatism is the equivalent of Category:American Roman Catholic conservatives when populated exclusively by people articles?
Well I suppose it might be, but I was not thinking about that since it does not exist. Hmains (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, do you think it was appropriate to remove articles from Category:Conservatives and place them in these new categories prior to the conclusion of the CfD on Category:Conservatives? Good Ol’factory 04:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think so. Since there seems to be no unified position or theory of the variety of aspects of American conservatism (as shown by the category), it is actually represented by what the people say and so--all of which is very clear in their WP articles. Hmains (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

But prior to the CfD concluding?—especially since you were aware of the discussion? You've been around long enough to know messing with a category's contents during CfD is strongly discouraged. Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to suggest what you wanted to do in the discussion and thereby request that deletion be delayed for those actions to take place? Good Ol’factory
I have never noticed anything like that before. Does it happen? I had no grand plan. I just looked around at things I found Hmains (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
But you are probably right. You more about things than I do. I just try to edit and organize. Hmains (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
It does happen sometimes. Sorry, I thought you were aware. I was not accusing you of that I was just concerned that it looked like that's what was being done. Good Ol’factory 06:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

California

Why'd you place that footnote tag on the California page? Perhaps because of the "Further reading" section? Killiondude (talk) 06:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Because many of the statements in the article lack citations pointing to specific references. I believe this is correct tag for this situation. Hmains (talk) 06:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No... {{refimprove}} would probably be better... but I'd be hesitant to put that on there because there are already around 55-60 references. I agree that the page needs more references though. Perhaps you could be bold and help find references. That's what I've been doing. Killiondude (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Netherlands

Hi Hmains, I did see you reverted the Netherlands article back by a few days; and I agree the recent addition of huge amounts of unsourced is problematic. Your revert in itself was also problematic however for several reasons.

(1) You did not make clear exactly which version you were reverting to; and in doing so you have also undone several relevant bits of copy-editing.
(2) After looking a bit back I assume you were reverting to the Jan 17 revision. It is unclear why you decided this was a "good version". In my opinion the problem dates back farther. I would say the last "good revision" would be this one from Jan 9, where some copyediting was done after removal of the huge additions; or even this one from Jan 8 one edit before the newby editor Historian19 made his first ever edit on the article by adding 78kB!! in a single edit.

For above reasons (dominantly the arbitrary "good version" choice - see my point 2) I have reverted your edit for now. I hope you don't mind too much. Arnoutf (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi your ANI noticeboard link to Britannice convinced me. I have taken the pain (several of the good faith edits were mine) and reverted the Netherlands article back to the last truly safe version of January 8. (I left an extensive note on the Netherlands talk page). Thanks for notifying us of this. Arnoutf (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:American conservative writers

Category:American conservative writers, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


Recent edits

Is there a reason why you keep putting tags and unlined citations on every article. Willydick (talk) 07:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I am not putting 'tags and unlined citations on every article'. I am properly marking those articles I see that need help so they can get the attention they need and get improved. Hmains (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No content in Category:Landforms of Saint Helena

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Landforms of Saint Helena, by another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Landforms of Saint Helena has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Landforms of Saint Helena, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Bridge categories

I respectfully request that you stop recategorizing bridges as you have. In my view, it is far more useful to have bridges categorized both by country and by type, rather than having them categorized by the intersection of both. I maintain articles about suspension bridges, and your efforts are making it quite difficult to find them all. They are now scattered about in many, many different categories. It may make it a little easier for those looking for suspension bridges from a specific country, but the task could be accomplished by using search (which will find articles based on category intersection), or the catscan tool. If you think these intersection categories are essential, I'd request that you not depopulate the original categories as well. Please!!! -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

  • It is well established that bridges and other structures are divided up by country categories so that they can be made into subcats of each country for readers who approach navigation from the country point of view. Perhaps a single alphabetic list/table of the bridges would serve as an index to them. Lists often serve as an index to categories--another method to help readers find things. Hmains (talk) 06:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It IS well established that they be divided up by country, but each subcategory does not also need to be divided. What you are doing is essentially a triple intersection, (bridges, location, structure type) which is considered an overcategorization. Bridges have been categorized this way since categorization began without a problem. People who want to look at bridges by country can do so. People who want to look at bridges by type can do so. People who want to look at both can do so using search or catscan. Your change removes the option of looking at bridges by type. It is counter productive. We've discussed bridge categorization at the bridge wikiproject. Perhaps, if you would like to change it around, we could bring the discussion there? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 11:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd be fine with this solution. I've advocated this type of duplication for years. The problem is that many other people decide that this type of duplication is wrong and remove the higher categories. This means that it is very, very difficult to keep useful categories from being diffused into microscopic bits. Well meaning editors like yourself create the subcategories, and then other editors assume the parents must be depopulated. I've seen this happen all over Misplaced Pages for years, and I have not been able to slow the tide very much. The only workable solution is to get the developers to get category intersection fully functional and repopulate much larger categories. I've discussed this ad nauseum at Misplaced Pages talk:Categorization and elsewhere... -- ☑ SamuelWantman 02:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    this is what I'm talking about... -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Kvalsund Bridge question

Hi there. One small question: Why does Kvalsund Bridge need to be listed both in Category:Suspension bridges in Norway and in Category:Suspension bridges? Seems unnecessary to me, as the latter is the parent category of the former. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


Recent edits

Why do you keep putting tags on all the articles? Your just making wikipedia more disgusting. Metro Sex (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree!! Willydick (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • You are confused. This has nothing to do with making wikipedia 'more disgusting' in your terminology. It has all to do with inviting editors to get to work and document the articles with necessary citations. These could become good articles or featured articles with proper references. As they are now, in accordance with WP policy, every unreferenced fact can be deleted at any time. You should become more familiar with WP policies and guidelines. Hmains (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is never and will never be perfect, you are just wasting time!! Willydick (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, I think your a vandal. Willydick (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Florida

While I'm not going to get in between you and User:Willydick over the tag you're adding, I think a more appropriate tag would be {{refimprove}}, rather than the one you are using now. The tag you are using is for articles which don't have inline citations, and instead rely on a list of sources at the bottom. This article suffers from insufficient citation, not just insufficient inline cites. See ELIZA as an example; it has four references, but only one inline citation, which is used to support a statement in the lede of the article. (The article has other issues as well, but it is a prime example of items lacking inline cites, but containing a list of references.) Horologium (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

California

I don't agree with your adjustments to the California article. Sure, maybe the tag at the top is fine (I agree that the article needs more citations), but placing the tag seven other times in the article is a little bit of overkill. Perhaps you should place the {{cn}} tag in the specific places that refs are needed? I'm also addressing this concern on the Talk:California page. Killiondude (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I think only one notice should go at the top of the article. I was only adding more as someone objected to having a notice at the top and no notices on the specific sections. Whatever you think is fine with me. Hmains (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Who objected? I don't understand that reasoning. So you placed a notice in the specific sections as well as at the top? Additionally, I don't think the wording of that tag applies to California. Maybe {{citations missing}} or {{refimprove}} would work better.... Killiondude (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

RE historian19

I notice you blocked one of historian19 socks for one week only. This is a very persisent copyright violator who just goes from one addresss to another do do his thing. It is very difficult to revert his enormous output of junk. I also notice that 41.249.57.101 is another account he used and which is not yet blocked. Hmains (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That's policy (WP:BLOCK#Block evasion). However, next time it would be indefinite. -- FayssalF - 01:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know these policy details; anything you can do helps. Thanks. Hmains (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to repair latest damage from hisorian19 and his socks. Can you get rid of this article Helldorado (Video game) that AIJoseph created. It is simply a copy of material found on the web. I noted the web address in the article talk page, which you can check. Hmains (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- FayssalF - 05:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Reorganization of political scandals of

Hi, Hmains, I like what you have done; and I wonder if you considered changing the subsection headings from mere "dates" into "term of office" dates? It would seem as if listing much of what is listed under specific "presidential terms of office" would be more representative (and perhaps refine the listing even more?). Please just answer me here. I have your page "watched".--Dixie Hag2 (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I was not thinking about anything else. Maybe someone else can. I realize the most recent date sections in the Federal list are based on the duration of a particular president, but earlier periods are not. Also, the scandals in the Legislative and Judicial branch have little to do with the president in office so the existing date periods are probably not suitable. I have no alternative suggestions though. Hmains (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Finnish Civil War

Finland became an independent country on 6 December 1917. The Finnish Civil War started one month and three weeks after that. The Russian Empire did not reconquer Finland in between. 194.100.223.164 (talk) 08:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

cat change: Interstate 505 (Oregon)

Can you explain this change to Interstate 505 (Oregon)? You didn't use a description, and "05-5" seems like random numbers, or a typo, or something category related that I'm not understanding. (I'm watching this page, so you can tb here) tedder (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Not random, just copying the pattern found above my entry for another category in which this article belongs and also all similar interstate highway article categorization. It is for category sort order. Hmains (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Now I remember you

You were the editor who added back in information into the article which equated Russia to the Soviet Union by the inclusion of USSR things into the article. Please don't equate me with a POV-pusher, when you are obviously the one who has done this, and on a much larger scale. The fact of the matter is, the current article talks of Russia, which has existed as a state since 1991. If you would even look at the article, they are all conspiracy theories. Not a single one is anything but allegations, which is what conspiracy theories are. I will be adding information in the coming days to the article, and will again be adding the category. You don't put it only in terrorism categories, but remove conspiracy theories, when they are already noted in the article already anyway. --Russavia 20:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

  • You should discuss edit content issues on the article's talk page. Other inferences: I am not not particularly interested in. You might want to compare the Russia article with other similar articles, such as Allegations of state terrorism by the United States and see if anyone is discriminating against the Russian state that you apparently choose to defend. The purpose of WP is not defend states or attack states or anything else, but to present documented facts. 'Allegations' are documented facts, whether they are true or not or whether a particular editor likes or agrees with them or not. The POV edits you state that you plan to add will be removed for what they are: edits from your personal point of view. Hmains (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
And you have now reverted information back into the article which is at Allegations of state terrorism by the Soviet Union. The USSR was made up of 15 now-independent countries, and to portray Soviet terrorism with Russia, but excluse Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, do I really need to go on, is a MASSIVE POV problem. I will be reverting your reinsertion of information which presents an inexcusable POV problem into the article. --Russavia 21:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
It is only included because of YOUR POV. This information is in a separate article, and is noted in the see also section. That is NPOV. If you don't see a problem with equating Russia to the Soviet Union, but leave out all mention of the other 14 republics, then I don't see the point discussing this with you. --Russavia 21:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I see my mistake on the USSR article and have fixed that. If you want to discuss, fine; it you want to revert prior to me being able to react to you, then you are wasting our time. I do not see that you understand or accept the statement that I made above: "'Allegations' are documented facts, whether they are true or not or whether a particular editor likes or agrees with them or not." Until you understand that, your edits to this article are pointless. Hmains (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I had to comment at WP:3RR after a report by another user.Biophys (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Edits to Notable Korean Americans page

Could you explain to me why all of these deleted topics are not part of the inclusion criteria? Though a number are not noted individuals and should be removed, many have wikipedia pages and others are mentioned in numerous articles (online and otherwise). Why have these specific entries been removed? 14:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)