User talk:Paleolithic Man/archive001
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Paleolithic Man. 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. |
Welcome!
|
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
- Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 07:16, Friday, November 29, 2024 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Paleolithic Man, you are invited to the Teahouse
|
Hi Paleolithic Man! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Learning Euskara
Kaixo, Alex! I can recommend you this online course (the explanations are in Spanish on the right hand). Of course, if you can contact any local eusko etxea, it would be much easier for you to learn Euskara: having the opportunity to practise as you learn makes it easier. Ondo ibili. --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 07:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Appreciate
Eskerrik asko gazte! Thanks for your feedback to a contribution of mine. Keep it up in the wikipedia. Best Iñaki LL (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
NPOV wording
Bit surprised that while adding "are believed to have" at Cro-Magnon you wrote categorically that Neanderthals were capable of building dugout boats. Besides the fact that capability includes more than just some tools, your sources put it as a suggestion or possibility. Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for correcting the wording. The evidence suggests that Neanderthals were capable building some sort of boat, most likely a dugout boat, to reach different islands in the Mediterranean. Think about it, if H. erectus could build boats 800,000 - 900,000 years ago, then why couldn't Neanderthals? I've noticed a trend in mainstream Anthropology to discredit the achievements/capabilities of Neanderthals. But that's beside the point.
- "Marine Geologist George Ferentinos compiled data that showed sea levels were 120 metres lower 100,000 years ago, because water was locked up in Earth's larger ice caps. But the seabed off Greece today drops down to around 300 metres, meaning that when Neanderthals were in the region, the sea would have been at least 180 metres deep (Journal of Archaeological Science, DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2012.01.032)." Original European (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 07:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oh I don't disagree, it's just that without the boats, no one is going to say they did it - and again, we follow what the sources say in a case like this. I thought the trend had changed. Glad you added that. Dougweller (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Solutrean
I'll get back to you tomorrow as I don't know what you are referring to, but you wouldn't normally remove the sentence. WP:DEADLINK may apply, or if that doesn't try to find a source or add a {{cn}} tag. Btw, I think we of European descent are all of Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon descent. I'm from Miami, but a long time ago! Dougweller (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, sounds good. I do agree with you, I just specifically added Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal because I am proud of that, unlike some Europeans who regard Neanderthals as primitive cavemen. Haha, that's cool. I'm from the beach area. But yeah, I'll check the sources and wait for your input tomorrow to decide what should happen. Cheers, Original European (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 22:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ok. First, you don't need to be able to read anything on line, so it's still sourced according to WP:RS and WP:VERIFY as it gives the detail of the article. So you definitely wouldn't remove anything except possibly the link, but you should really mark it as a dead link. You should also search for another link, even if only do a publication page that is subscription only. But I found a legitimate (ie not a copyright violation) link and added that instead. Dougweller (talk) 09:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello my Friend
You seem to be keen on improving information about the Cro-Magnon people, if i had the time i would help you but i am quite busy at the moment,,the section on genetics could do with being expanded,,essential information on current populations with a degree of Cro-Magnon would be R1b ethnic groups which are at least 80% pure
all the best--Kovkikz (talk) 10:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, Kovkikz. Thank you. I will try to improve the genetics section as soon as I can. Cheers, Original European (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 20:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello
Thank you for thanking me for my edit! Cogiati (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello
hello i am corsican boy ..Corsican people are italian are latino.. they have italian name and is not france. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.200.93.118 (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation(s)
Your contributions are appreciated. You are very welcome here. But, I have encountered possible copyright violations:
Some or all of the content appears to be copy pasted. Please remember that you must write in your own words. We cannot copy and paste from other websites.
If I have made an error, please accept my apologies.
For further information, please read Wikipedia:Copyright violations. If you have questions, please ask. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Another:
Message
Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Message
Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
An Award for You
|
The Exceptional Newcomer Award | |
| For an exceptionally fine start. Keep up the good work. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC) |
Indent your posts
|
Indent your posts with colons, like this: I like bunnies. Did I tell you I'm left handed? I like kittens. etc. etc. |
Manual archiving is now set up
I've done the following:
- Created User:Paleolithic Man/Archive box. That is the template for your archive box at the top of this talk page and for your archive subpages.
- I got your first archive subpage ready by adding the "don't modify" box and one of the archive boxes I just mentioned above.
- I pasted the new archive box template at the top of this page. You can change it however you like. Here is a link to select colours: [6]
I usually paste old threads whenever I like to an archive subpage until it gets to about 100 items. If an archive subpage gets too big, then it is hard for others to load the page.
If you have any questions or conerns, please ask. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Feedback needed on using special characters
Hello. Thank you for using VisualEditor! Having editors use it is the best way for the Wikimedia Foundation to develop it into the best tool it can be.
While we always welcome general feedback (please report any issues in Bugzilla in the "VisualEditor" product or drop your feedback on the central feedback page on MediaWiki.org), the developers are especially interested right now in feedback on the special character inserter. This new tool is used for inserting special characters (including symbols like ₥, IPA pronunciation symbols, mathematics symbols, and characters with diacritics). It is intended to help people whose computers do not have good character inserters. For example, many Mac users prefer to use the extensive "Special Characters..." tool present at the bottom of the Edit menu in all applications or to learn the keyboard shortcuts for characters like ñ and ü.
The current version of the special characters tool in VisualEditor is very simple and very basic. It will be getting a lot of work in the coming weeks and months. It does not contain very many character sets at this time. (The specific character sets can be customized at each Wikipedia, so that each project could have a local version with the characters it wants.) But the developers want your ideas at this early stage about ways that the overall concept could be improved. I would appreciate your input on this question, so please try out the character inserter and tell me what changes to the design would (or would not!) best work for you.
 |
 |
Issues you might consider:
- How often do you normally use Wikipedia's character inserters?
- Which character sets are useful to you? Should it include all 18 of the character sets provided in the wikitext editor's newer toolbar at the English Wikipedia, the 10 present in the older editor toolbar, or some other combination of character sets?
- How many special characters would you like to see at one time?
- Should there be a "priority" or "favorites" section for the 10 or 12 characters that most editors need most often? Is it okay if you need an extra click to go beyond the limited priority set?
- How should the sections be split up? Should they be nested? Ordered?
- How should the sections be navigated? Should there be a drop-down? A nested menu?
- The wikitext editor has never included many symbols and characters, like ℗ and ♀. Do you find that you need these missing characters? If the character inserter in VisualEditor includes hundreds or thousands of special characters, will it be overwhelming? How will you find the character you want? What should be done for users without enough space to display more than a few dozen characters?
- Should the character inserter be statically available until dismissed? Should it hover near the mouse? Should it go away on every selection or 10 seconds after a selection with no subsequent ones?
- Some people believe that the toolbar already has too many options—how would you simplify it?
The developers are open to any thoughts on how the special character inserter can best be developed, even if this requires significant changes. Please leave your views on the central feedback page, or, if you'd prefer, you can contact me directly on my talk page. It would be really helpful if you can tell me how frequently you need to use special characters in your typical editing and what languages or other special characters are important to you.
Thank you again for your work with VisualEditor and for any feedback you can provide. I really do appreciate it.
P.S. You might be interested in the current ideas about improving citations, too. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Message
Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey gazte, eskerrik asko again
Actually not always an easy task to bring accuracy and (quite a lot of) missing facts into Basque topics, so appreciated again!:) Iñaki LL (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Did you read the source you added?
With this edit[7] you added [8] as a source. It clearly fails WP:RS (and in any case we should stick with scientific sources). Aliens? Atlantis? Why did you use this as a source? Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- It was one of the first things that came up and I didn't read the whole thing. I don't really like finding sources as it consumes too much time. Sorry about that. Original European (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Finding good sources that meet our criteria, and using them appropriately, is key to writing a good article. For articles such as the ones you are interested in, this almost always means ignoring the web and sticking to Google Books and Google Scholar - and libraries! Books don't have to be on the web. Google snippets are almost always worthless, you need to be able to read your sources. Libraries can get articles, and we have a page where you can request resources. This all takes time, but I find it fun. What is almost harder is resisting the temptation to stop when you find one. Articles need to represent all significant views - see WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. And avoid anything self-published. There are a lot of self-publishers out there, and a lot of our own articles disguised as books. Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining that to me. I will avoid using web sources from now on and stick to Google Books and Google Scholar. Will everything I find on these searches be reliable? And if there are multiple sources, which do I use? Or should I use as many as I can find? Original European (talk) 06:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Finding good sources that meet our criteria, and using them appropriately, is key to writing a good article. For articles such as the ones you are interested in, this almost always means ignoring the web and sticking to Google Books and Google Scholar - and libraries! Books don't have to be on the web. Google snippets are almost always worthless, you need to be able to read your sources. Libraries can get articles, and we have a page where you can request resources. This all takes time, but I find it fun. What is almost harder is resisting the temptation to stop when you find one. Articles need to represent all significant views - see WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. And avoid anything self-published. There are a lot of self-publishers out there, and a lot of our own articles disguised as books. Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)