User talk:Oiyarbepsy/Archive 10
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Oiyarbepsy. 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. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
All posts on this page are permanently linked through User talk:Oiyarbepsy/2015H
Reply to your last message
This is a followup to User talk:Oiyarbepsy/2015G#A short reply to your Welcome Message
Thank you for the nice words about writing a good article. It was not difficult to write an article on Wikipedia after looking at other articles in edit-mode. But the rest I have to learn! And I just learned that I'm not allowed to delete my own article. That's very weird. However, what strikes me most is the double standard in applying tags. I see lots of articles with only one or two references given for congress papers, or not even that important, but no tags hanging in there. And that's not only the case of articles about software but also the case of some other kind of articles, such as biographies for example. Check this: Delwin Lindsey. It's not a new page. There's just one sentence about him with no reference and yet I see no tags. Even if that sentence would have a reference, what is so special about an American psychologist who teaches evolutionary psychology and its history? I just gave one example but the list is long. Considering my article, it's difficult to argue about the subject's notability when there are references like the AIC annual report, which is the newsletter of the International Color Association (take a look on their website), the Color Research and Application journal, which is the most important journal in color research, two congress papers...well, it's more notable than other articles that don't have the notability tag attached. And there's also the issue of classification. Your other tag suggests that the article must be classified, but I already classified it. If you take a look on the official website of TCA, the software system is classified in Computational Physics, Colorimetry, which is exactly how I classified it. Even if we were not to trust the classification from that website, it's clear that Colorimetry is about measuring color and this system measures color, so it must go in that category. The fact that the category doesn't exist on Wikipedia doesn't mean that I categorized the article wrong, as your tag suggests. The article should not be misplaced just because Wikipedia doesn't have an existing category for it. Don't you think so? I'm quite disappointed.Colorchaser (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Colorchaser:You covered a lot there, so I'll try to respond best I can.
- As far as deleting your own article, only administrators can delete here. You can request an administrator delete it. We allow editors to delete their own pages if no one else has made a substantial contribution, and the Trichromatic Color Analyser article certainly fits the bill. Place {{db-g7}} at the top, and an admin will come by - while our policy allows them to do it, it does not require them to, so it's possible they will decide that your article is too good to just delete. I probably would decide that if I was an administrator.
- As far as tags, we are a 100% volunteer organization. Articles get tagged because someone just happened to see it and tag it. As far as Mr. Lindsey, his article is tagged as a stub, which has the implicit assumption that there is a lot of work to do, so other tags aren't really required. Your article is far too detailed to be noted as a stub, so any tags will be more specific. You are right that the article needs work.
- I've reconsidered and I'm with you on the notability, and I removed the tag. Again, volunteer, and I, like all volunteers, sometimes am an idiot who screws stuff up.
- Categories - you did place them into categories that seem proper, but the categories otherwise don't exist yet. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the right categories for this article do exist under a different title than the ones you entered. Categorization is one of those nuts-and-bolts things that happen behind the scenes, and you shouldn't view category trouble as any indication that you are poor at writing article. It merely indicates that you haven't quite made sense of all our convoluted systems we have here. That said, we do have editors that patrol the uncategorized pages and who know our categories very well, and I expect they'll stop by to categorize your page however we do it.
- Let me know if I missed anything, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the notability tag
Thank you for a very detailed answer and for removing the notability tag. I'm curios to see which category will be chosen for my article. The example I gave with Mr. Lindsey's page was for the simple reason that it is one of the articles that don't meet the minimum requirements. I'm reading a lot on the help pages of Wikipedia where I'm sometimes getting totally lost. While checking on how to delete my article (which I will not do anymore) I stumbled on the minimum criteria for publishing biographies of living persons. It was written there that the biography must have at least one reliable source. An article that doesn't meet the minimum requirement should be tagged for deletion, not as a stub. Don't you think so? I don't insist with this example because there are so many others, unfortunately. But I just realized that I could have written actually 3 articles: 2 about the authors (because I have a reference for each one) and one about the software system. Doing that would have boosted my contribution to Wikipedia from 1 to 3 articles in one shot, isn't it? And yes, I know that Wikipedia is free and that the reviewers are doing free work. The same happens at high impact journals that make a lot of money: reviewers are not paid. At least Wikipedia doesn't get rich on volunteers' work. I'm interested in color and have to work on some marine biology research now that involves color, so I need to read Color Research and Application. It's unbelievably expensive and I don't understand why, if authors and reviewers contribute for free. It is sad to see how bad intellectual work is paid, if paid at all. I am trying now to fix the image scanner article from bottom to top, so that those tags can be removed. I started to do that after deciding not to write about Chromimage anymore. I might make some mistakes because I'm learning while working (a method that has its disadvantages), so please take a look from time to time. The main problem with that article is that it has no references in some sections. Now that I started to find references, I realize that many sentences, even paragraphs, are just copied and pasted there. Should I place quotation marks around such text and add the reference? And, by the way, from the way you write and from the structured way you replied, it is impossible to convince me that you are an idiot. I will go back to your message and enter edit-mode now to see how you make those nice blue dots. I already learned how to sign. Colorchaser (talk) 08:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- As far as stuff that is outright copied, putting it in quotes is okay as an interim measure, but in the long run it needs to be rewritten in your own words or deleted outright. The exception to this would be if material was copy-pasted from a free source, like public domains or creative commons, which I seriously doubt. Thanks for putting in the time to improve our articles, I'm sure there are a million pages like that which could use the once-over. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lord of Miracles of Buga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Figure. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Wireless
This is about Talk:Wireless (story)
Hi Oiyarbepsy
I'm trying to write the article with my own stuff; can you please stop putting the info straight from a website in just temporarily while I'm doing it? It seems to me that you're half plagiarising as it is. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Trouts
Hallo, I noticed your friendly message at User talk:Banjararavi, but I wonder whether the mention of trouts might just be very confusing for newbie editors, perhaps especially those without English as a first language, so perhaps isn't a good idea? (Not too sure about the fairies either... !) But good luck in trying to help confused newcomers. PamD 09:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- I've cleaned up their spree of misguided edits. PamD 09:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- @PamD:This leads to my question, would adding a picture of a trout and a fairy help or hurt things? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 12:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think the trout really helps at all, and I'm not sure that the fairies are really wise either, a bit culturally specific don't you think? Just offer a bunch of flowers or something! (Yes, there are probably cultures where that's unwelcome too, but safer than cookies!) Or am I being a bit dour and retired-librarianish about all this? But some of our editors would probably be offended by Fuseli's lady's clinging draperies as on your talk page! PamD 17:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think this might be your bit dour side. But, just to be safe, I'll switch my user page picture to a depiction of Muhammed eating vegan imitation-pork, which couldn't possibly offend anybody. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Virginia Tech Project Invite
Go Hokies (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Potential RfA candidates
This was probably a bit ironic considering that the whole exercise is part and parcel of reassuring genuine candidates that in spite of the snark they may possibly receive on their RfA, they might pass. Do people have to make snarky comments everywhere ? See the talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- I consider "0 for not reading a certain page" to be way more snarky than "haters gonna hate". Oiyarbepsy (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Nomination of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Mannose Sensitive Hemagglutinin for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pseudomonas aeruginosa Mannose Sensitive Hemagglutinin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudomonas aeruginosa Mannose Sensitive Hemagglutinin until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Billingford, map link;
Beck Hall (moated), Bawdeswell Rd, Billingford, Norfolk, UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawismarkellot (talk • contribs) 06:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Can you explain your further rationale for supporting the proposal? It seems not adequate yet. --George Ho (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I invite you to ongoing second RM discussion. --George Ho (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)