User talk:Cimon Avaro/archive1
About the redirects (I get the impression you don't know how to make them yourself?). Go ahead and make 'em if they're needed. Just make a link to the non-existent page you want to create (e.g. [[Raymond Lull]]), click on it, and then put a #REDIRECT [[Ramon Llull]] there. (Those, of course are already done...) -- Someone else 19:33 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
- Thank you for your thoughtful instruction. I am pacing myself in immersion into this whole community. This is so kewl. I already made one redirect page, and not to test the mechanism either. Cimon avaro 05:36 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
Hello there Cimon avaro, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page and experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. MB 18:18 15 May 2003 (UTC)
- Alas, I fear I am already hooked. Just qualified for the wikimoney grant today.Cimon avaro 18:37 May 15, 2003 (UTC)
- Ha! You fell for my cleverly-laid trap! (Kidding; I really didn't know any better. Please keep going though, I love reading about that stuff, even though I'm not much good at it.) - Hephaestos 18:53 May 15, 2003 (UTC)
From User talk:Mbecker: Hi. Thank you for wellcoming me. My question is; is there any chance you could mark your user page edits as minor (M) edits, when you tweak it? Cimon avaro 16:26 16 May 2003 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'll try to keep that in mind in the future, it's a bad habit of mine, not marking anything as minor :). MB 17:28 16 May 2003 (UTC)
Hopefully not too hairy. What generally works well, I find, is to make sure that entry titles and content are as specific and concise as possible, which is easy when there's a clear hierarchy (such as logical fallacy > faulty generalization > hasty generalization).
If this policy isn't followed, you get messes like communism, communist state, communist government, Leninism, which all offer variants of the same information, subtly disagreeing in various points with the result that no definitive entry will take shape. (Yes, this is my bias, so don't take my word for it.)
What I consider a good sign of a problem (and I'm guilty of it with the hasty generalization entry to some degree) is "See also" links. "See also" is essentially shorthand for "I couldn't be bothered to express cogently the connection between the two entries," which implies that something is less clear than it should be. --The Cunctator
If a Finnish word doesn't even exist, how can you know it's Finnish?? -- John Owens 16:12 24 May 2003 (UTC)
- Well, what language do you think the following word is in: "wordnothing".Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 16:35 24 May 2003 (UTC)
- Why, that's in Tlingit, obviously. -- John Owens 16:41 24 May 2003 (UTC)
- More seriously, though, what language, for instance, do you think the word "sache" would be in? Or "nine", if you only heard it? -- John Owens 16:46 24 May 2003 (UTC)
Thankyou for going over and correcting the finnish songs in the Eurovision Pages. Altough a problem I need to sought out is make shore all the songs are the write names, as I have got conflicting data with them. I am waiting for the EBU to reply to my e-mail for information. -fonzy
- No sweat. Have to admit that I didn't check them from any authoritative list, just adjusted those that simply had to be wrong. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 11:14 25 May 2003 (UTC)
Its ok, most of the information I get are from the unoffical websites, who usaly copy each other replicating mistakes. So I just have to wait for the EBU to reply to me. One major conflict I get is with the Italian 1958 entry, I have two completly diffrent song titles.- fonzy
Most dictionary definitions of pataphysics will include the notion that it is a joke or parody. I suppose "studying pataphysical science" might confuse some people so much they forget that<G>. Of course, Your Mileage May Differ. -- Someone else 15:30 27 May 2003 (UTC)
- Until such time as the "pataphysical" articles become comprehensible rather than nonsensical gibberish, I support their deletion. They are not encyclopedic until they are "about" their subject. As to what might be in an actual article about pataphysics, I would happily leave to you. But we do not currently have actual articles about pataphysics, we have practical jokes masquerading as articles. -- Someone else 15:43 27 May 2003 (UTC)
I think that "sphenic number" is either a typo or is extremely rarely used. --User:Juuitchan 208.58.249.235 06:15 28 May 2003 (UTC)