User talk:Ningauble/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Welcome!

Hello, Ningauble, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Spencer^T♦C 13:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, that was me. :) Spencer^T♦C 13:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(chuckle) Thanks for not using one of those awful full-page welcome templates. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

irestorer

Hello my friend,

Please Don't remove IRestorer article. It's a notable program. very better than Ghost & Acronis... extreme fast & amazing compression rate... you can try it.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.172.251 (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do present your argument at the AfD discussion page, not here. Note that the debate is not about whether it is any good, but whether is is technically notable. Thanks ~ Ningauble (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Hi. :) I've replied to your note here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Hammes Company

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hammes Company. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. CyberGhostface (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Tipping Point (political)

I was hoping you could reassess the enhancements that have been made to the article. I have been working hard in good faith to ensure this article's survival, because I hear this term every day, and consider it a significant buzzword in the western world.

thanks,

Duuude007 (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

deletion and humor

We definitely need more humor at Wikipedia. Thanks for the compliment and laugh. I looked at your contributions and picked out a deletion at random. You should be made aware that Central Asia Health Review has been recreated. It appears to be a hoax article since if it existed for almost a year as a web site, Google would have heard of it. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orbital Defence Initiative

I'll reopen and relist the discussion so a better consensus can be reached. ffm 22:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Trivia section

Hi! I took a look at this [1]

Wikipedia:Trivia has to do with whether facts are miscellaneous and grouped indiscriminately - It has nothing to do with whether the facts are actually notable and/or whether trivia belongs on Wikipedia. What WP:Trivia is telling people to do is to avoid unorganized lists. Anyhow, Economy sections typically include major employers and notable companies so I don't see how listing them is indiscriminate. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, {{trivia}} was not the right tag to express my thoughts. The list is not unorganized or unrelated. As Wikipedia:Trivia#Not all list sections are trivia sections says, "A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia." (emphasis added)

However, there are thousands of companies that have presences in Encino, as reliably sourced in the local phone book, and the listed ones are not distinguished as, e.g., being particularly large or prominent. Failing to see the basis for selectivity here, the list looks to me like an {{examplefarm}}. Perhaps that is a better tag to have used.

I commented "This is not encyclopedic coverage of the local economy" in-line with the tag because I was also thinking about {{Generalize|section}}. E.g., an informative section on the local economy might identify the largest business sectors. At a guess, without having looked for reliable sources, these may be Medical Services (with the hospital probably being the single largest employer), Professional Services (Legal and Accountancy), Finance, Retail, and, of particular historical significance, Entertainment.

In short, I tagged the section because it struck me as indiscriminate and unencyclopedic, and I still think so. I am sorry if the tag was unhelpful. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes, it is good to include a section summarizing the economic activity in Encino - There should be a source that explains this.

2. Well, usually the criteria for listing companies is the same as Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) - Generally any company that can pass this could be listed - This can include an airline (the only reason why I listed Sita travel is because it represents several carriers that list the office as a contact) or an overseas department of a Japanese animation studio. So, when we think about the notability guideline above, how many companies are left? WhisperToMe (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Re. (1): Alas, I am not familiar with sources for this type of information. Eventually someone knowledgeable may add a good section on the local economy.

Re. (2): I could list a hundred before lunch, and many, many more if I spent some time researching notability. But, depending on completeness, that would either be an example farm or a directory. Listing a couple or a handful with no indication that they are representative of or significant to the article's subject just strikes me as connective trivia—interesting to some, perhaps, but hardly encyclopedic in my opinion. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding 2, does Encino really have that many notable/prominent companies with office operations within Encino? I had the impression Encino was mostly residential. I'll see what other groups have office operations inside Encino - this could determine how to handle the entries on the list. As an example of what I had in mind regarding business districts you could see Uptown_Houston#Economy - It's not polished or perfect, but it has a rough idea of the kinds of operations I was thinking of. BTW Encino has no foreign consulates, so it would apparently be only companies... WhisperToMe (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In large part, downtown Encino today is a financial district: mid-rise office buildings housing banks, finance companies, brokerages, and related professional services—too numerous to mention, really. In order to write an informative section on the economy of Encino, I think one would at least need to find out about its general composition. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

WikiThanks

Ningauble, thank you for taking the time to comment on WT:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline with your insightful comments. I am grateful you recognize how important this guideline will be, since it will determine the inclusion or exclusion of television character and television episodes. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In case you had not heard...

Last September you offered opinion at a mass AfD that included The Time Machine (Radio) and related articles of the Radio Tales series. A larger set of these articles is again at a new mass AfD. If still interested, you are invited to visit the discussion. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of WTPRN

WTPRN has been nominated for deletion and you were involved in a previous afd. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WTPRN (2nd nomination). Thank you.--Sloane (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

article "Shamanism" in WIKIQUOTE

In "UserTalk:0XQ", you wrote : "Please stop copying pages from texts.00.gs. It is a violation of copyright. Wikiquote is not a web host for mirroring other sites." But since I am the owner of http://texts.00.gs, this would not be copyright violation.0XQ (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(1) Please discuss Wikiquote at Wikiquote:. (2) Please read the "If you hold the copyright..." section of the notice on the copied articles. (3) Be that as it may, Wikiquote is not a web host for mirroring other sites. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright (C) YEAR 0XQ.

   Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
   under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3
   or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
   with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
   A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
   Free Documentation License".0XQ (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

N.B. More than one editor of Wikipedia has written to me that I ought to place (upload) onto the appropriate Wikipedia-associated area (which would be Wikiquote) the texts to which I was linking my articles written in Wikipedia. It was explained to me that crosslinking within Wikipedia would then be possible, so that the information could then be wholly contained within the Wikipedia areas, without having to be dependent on external links. Thus, in uploading to Wikiquote I have been merely following what has been explained to me as standard Wikipedia policy, and in which I was merely following invitations to do so from Wikipedia editors. Now, I did write to one Wikipedia editor that I might meet up with some contrary editor (who would oppose my compliance with this policy) if I were to do so, and now that predicted situation may possibly have occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0XQ (talk • contribs) 00:48, 2 April 2009

Again, "Please discuss Wikiquote at Wikiquote:." While they are affiliated, Wikiquote and Wikipedia are separate projects. More than one editor of Wikipedia is unfamiliar with the policies and guidelines of Wikiquote. Thank you. ~ Ningauble (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi Ningauble. Per the stipulations at WP:CANVASSING, I've pinged your talk page to "appropriately canvass" you wrt the deletion discussion currently taking place at "WP:Articles for deletion/Home and family blog." (Note that I've also pinged the talkpages of all of your fellow participants at last years deletion discussion at "WP:Articles for deletion/List of blogs," to ensure that my notifications are to are small number of wiki-contributors that have been neutrally selected.) I hope you'll consider taking part in our discussion. Thanks. ↜Just me, here, now … 07:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

McLaren

Hi, just to say I hope my answer to your comment at the McLaren discussion page didn't come across as mean or unpleasant. I wasn't trying to belittle your opinion at all. I knocked it out a little while ago, then I just read it again, and it seemed a little snippy. Hope you didn't take offence in any way. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It is of the nature of idea to be communicated: written, spoken, done. The idea is like grass. It craves light, likes crowds, thrives on crossbreeding, grows better for being stepped on.

Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed (1974)

No problem. I am agreeable about disagreeing, else I would not offer up minority views in the first place. I do most of my editing at Wikiquote, where the perspective is a little different.

~ Ningauble (talk) 03:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

re: WP:NOTDICDEF vs WP:NOTPLOT

Good afternoon. At WT:NOT, you recently wrote that:

There is definitely something to this analogy, but there is also a material difference. An article that begins life as a stub by identifying the subject is different from one that begins life by describing the subject. It would be a rare stub indeed that grew into thousands of words, or an entire article farm representing hundreds of hours of contributor effort, while still remaining nothing but a definition. While the purpose served by definition is readily seen as an essential but supporting role, description can more easily be taken to be an end in itself. What seems to be wanting is guidance on the purpose, or consensus on what that purpose is.

I don't yet understand your distinction between 'identifying' and 'describing'. A definition of a noun identifies the object by describing it. Are you talking only about the degree of effort? If so, there have been a number of examples of long, involved pages that covered nuanced definitions, pronunciation (including dialectical variances) and theories of etymology yet remained dictionary definitions. Ultimately, the lexical content was moved to Wiktionary (with an abbreviated version left at Wikipedia) and the article rebalanced. Could you please elaborate on what you see as the difference? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if the intent of my informal parallel construction was not clear from the context. Feel free to disregard the remark. ~ Ningauble (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Your recent comment at WT:NOT was cogent and articulate.
The goal is to more fully explain all the nuance and detail about dealing with plot summaries without bloating WP:NOT any more than it already is. In that regard, this page is intended to parallel WP:WINAD, a drill-down page which very successfully elaborates on and clarifies WP:NOTDICDEF.
Thanks in advance for any thoughts you might have. Rossami (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

New Messages

Check out my talk page, you have a message. Sorry for the delay. Dotty••|☎ 19:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

BARBARIAN.

I just stumbled across WP:BARBARIAN (and didn't realize how new it was; reading it I for some reason thought it quite old). Stumbling around on Wikipedia is rather interesting; I thought I was going to someone's talk page by clicking a link in their signature, and the link was to the essay instead. Anyway, I just wanted to say I thought your comment there was well-phrased.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 00:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

PS I seem to run into comments by you all over the place :) . . . .

Thanks. I found White Barbarian when I stumbled across the new Opinion Desk a little over a week ago. I did not notice that it had already been published in The Signpost by the time I got around to commenting on it. I think the Opinion column is a fine innovation, and may draft a submission myself. (Please link to pages that you mention in comments – even if I know what you are referring to now, it makes them easier to track down later.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

How To Lie

Thanks for restoring my original wording. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. I watchlisted this page when I created a corresponding article at Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Signpost?

Monday's Policy Report is going to be on WP:Civility, but we don't have enough quotable material from the talk page yet, so I'm beg ... er, soliciting opinions from people who have spoken up on that talk page recently. If you have something quotable, or if you don't, feel free to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Policy report_for_Signpost. - Dank (push to talk) 23:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"argument"

I'm sorry you thought I was using the word "argument" in the sense of "contentious speech act". My intent was more along the lines of "reasons advanced for and against a proposition". You offered evidence, and I offered counter-evidence. Also, to be fair, I wasn't as interested in soliciting opinions as I was in simply moving the page. :) I would have done so without the move request if I was able. I stand by my assertion that "glossolalia" is unnecessarily formal and not as likely as a search term, but I'm perfectly willing to accept the consensus of other editors. Ἀλήθεια 15:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Rename

Please, take a look at my petition of renaming. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro00pedro (talk • contribs) 16:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't help you because I am not a bureaucrat. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)