Hpvpp

Just in case somebody wants to talk to me. Hpvpp (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Keith Allan (actor) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Morenooso (talk) 05:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

So be it. Hpvpp (talk) 05:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am interested in knowing what this page is for. It appears to be a duplication of text from another article, written by another user, which would make it copyright infringement. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I am sorry, and I should have prepared all this in my user-space, but it turned out to be a little bit more complex than I had anticipated and I made some typos and then everything didn't work the way it was supposed to, making me really confused, but then I noticed that the text had been replaced by a redirect (courtesy of you) and I now have learned yet another aspect of wiki-culture.

My idea is mainly to have a separate summary-page to be transcluded wherever it is needed and to use that same summary-page as an integral part of the page it summarizes. That way, when some editor makes an improvement on the main page and as a consequence needs to adjust the summary, any other page that transcludes that summary will be automatically be updated.

Hpvpp (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

That is an interesting idea, however, I am not sure when this would be necessary. Most articles only need to wikilink to the original article when a summary this lengthy is involved. What I mean is, when the article is mentioned, someone would more likely link to the article than attempt to explain the whole article in the other one. For example, "He was involved in the Linguistic relativity and the color naming debate." Here, rather than explaining what the whole debate is, some context is given, and the whole topic can easily be accessed. I encourage you to contribute to the original article, as you seem knowledgeable on the subject and have found references. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

It all depends on how much of the referred-to topic is part of the rhetorical structure of the text. Think of a scale with at one end of the scale see-also topics collected at the end of the article and at the other end of the scale summaries positioned at a strategic point within the article and your example somewhere in the middle of the scale. In this case, linguistics is still young and there are many points of disagreement. Someone wishing to know more about a particular topic should be made aware of alternative explanations, especially in the case where some academic discipline propounds something akin to a collective POV. Where there is no consensus, there also cannot be a neutral POV. Transcluded summary-pages are then useful to present a balanced article.

Hpvpp (talk) 05:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I find your idea intriguing, but still feel as if you would need consensus and a policy written before making it common practice. In any event, I believe the correct namespace for a age like this would be the "Template" space, so I will move it there. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 05:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

By the same token you would then need consensus to have it in Template space. To me a Template is to data like a macro is to a program. An article is data and so a summary of that data is also data. I am new, indeed, but not naive. I propose you start a discussion to find consensus. I will participate, if I may, because I have other ideas that might be useful.

Hpvpp (talk) 05:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I merely follow recommendations at Wikipedia:Transclusion, namely that "In the Wikipedian context, it is the use of the template functionality of MediaWiki to include the same content in multiple documents without having to edit those documents separately". In fact, I believe all pages meant to be transcluded on the project are currently in template space. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 05:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template#Usage > Pages with a common section says "Pages like C can be put in the same namespace as A and B; advantage: the kind of content of C is the same as that of A and B". Perhaps my usage is uncommon?

Hpvpp (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hmm... I've just never seen it used that way, that's all. According to that page, it's not incorrect to place it in the article space. Perhaps I was hasty... かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Okay, what do we do now?

Hpvpp (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have created an improved version for the Linguistic relativity and the color naming debate at User:Hpvpp/Sandbox with a test page at User:Hpvpp/Sandbox/testcases. The idea is that anyone can edit the summary wherever they find it, but they are then first directed to the template which gives them all the relevant information for using the template and appropriate warnings to be careful in editing and take into account the various contexts within which the template is used. (When implemented, the spurious references to my sandbox won't be there, of course.) Could you give me your opinion, please?

Hpvpp (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm just not sure how to proceed with the idea; perhaps a request for comment would draw in the input of those who have more experience in template procedure and syntax than I do. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

For the time being, I have proposed that the articlespace redirect be deleted; when the RfC closes, if there doesn't seem to be consensus that this should be adopted, the template can be substituted to return the article text and then deleted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was going to.Hpvpp (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to Wikipedia, Hpvpp! I am Scapler and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

thanks! Hpvpp (talk) 06:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have added a reply to Wikipedia:Help desk#interlanguage links problem. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The article Experimental languages has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced; full of original research; fork from linguistic relativity

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Orange Mike | Talk 02:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

unwarranted - see the article's talk page.

Hpvpp (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Hpvpp, De softredirect (een sjabloon) wordt gebruikt omdat we anders jou pagina's in de foutenlijst steeds zien terugkomen. De software herkent de redirect als niet goed werkende en meldt dit. Via dit sjabloon dat er vrijwel hetzelfde uitziet wordt dit dan opgelost. Groetjes - Romaine (talk) 09:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

After discussing the matter with Daniel, I have recreated this page and set a different protection configuration. Feel free to edit it as you wish. Best, NW (Talk) 14:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

thanks Hpvpp (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

• Hey, I noticed that you were interested in writing a section on the origin of the term "Sapir-Whorf hypothesis." I at least mentioned the term as a misnomer, but I wrote what I feel is a somewhat clumsy (and perhaps overly concise) single sentence explaining the misnomer's origin. Would you still interested in making that new section or at least helping to better explain the misnomer? Thanks! Wolfdog (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I will help, but it needs to be a consensus exercise and I have no doubt that both Cnilep and Maunus will keep an eye on developments. I did propose (at Talk:Linguistic_relativity#cleanup) to separate out the history of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in order to make the article more concise and also because that hypothesis is sufficiently noteworthy of itself to warrant its own page. Perhaps you could revive the cleanup-discussion? Hpvpp (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi - I made some corrections to the Fads and fallacies article (I had an email from Prof. Michael Heap asking if I could help). they are likely to be reverted for 'political reasons' (I was banned some time ago for making accusations about a senior person here). What I did: (1) correct the article so it is clear what Gardner is actually arguing. He is taking a bunch of theories which for the most part are patently indefensible, and making observations about 'common characteristics' (NOT criteria) of the proponents of these theories. He is also NOT claiming (as the criticism suggests) that we can judge a theory by the psychology of the person who put the theory forward. Thus the criticism is a straw man. Best. Peter Damian VII (talk) 11:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

"2/0" is just a rendering of "2over0", which is my full username. My signature also includes a link to my contributions, abbreviated "cont."

Anyway, thanks for starting the new discussion at Talk:Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. It seems to have stimulated some more interest, perhaps even enough that we may get some better sourcing out of the discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I read the intro to WP:POLL and I thank you for reminding me. The reason I called for a vote was to get some clarity in who is involved and why so. I don't have rights to see who is watching the page, but I suspect there are many more than have contributed so far. Also, I wanted to prompt editors into clearly stating their position, because,in my opinion, the issue here at Fads and fallacies touches one of the major weak points of Wikipedia. Hpvpp (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Seems to be confusion of what going on The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Continued at WP:ANI -- Hpvpp (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am interested in your spat with 'Iridescent' re what you allege to be an 'admin culture'. Are you progressing with the complaint you were considering?! I very much hope so, as I am certain that an 'admin culture' exists and the reason for my interest is that Iridescent has just launched a thinly-veiled attack on me which I strongly suspect is a prime example of what you must have in mind. Basically, I don't care what s/he thinks of me; my concern is that s/he made out to have a superior knowledge of my subject while simultaneously demonstrating that s/he didn't. I have clearly stated that I am a 'beginner' Wikepedian, and this sort of attack would most certainly be disconcerting to, say, 30 - 50% of new editors when encountering it in this form.

My problem is that I don't know how to complain; although I am led to believe that I must try an initial approach in person to Iridescent. So I will hold back on this for the time being, to see whether you would like to give me any feedback on your own concerns. If I don't hear from you within say 3 days I'll go ahead on my own.

(My own 'dispute' referred to is on the WikiProject Bridges talk page I think!) Flying Stag (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Iridescent closed the discussion I started giving a justification I didn't find reasonable. I complained about that User_talk:Iridescent#Unwarranted_closure here and at WP:ANI. That discussion was moved back to WP:AN by Beyond My Ken and subsequently closed by Fastily after which I gave up. I then raised the proposal at WP:VP/PR that only admins should be able to close discussions on WP:AN, but I am getting the impression that nobody cares.

The complaint of there existing an "Admin culture" has been raised before, but so far nothing has changed. To be sure, there have been, and still are, discussions going on and if you search for them you will find some illuminating ones. Also, there are the complaints raised at the March 2011 Update. However, I think that the problem is an unavoidable consequence of Wikipedia philosophy "anybody can edit". The real problem, I think, is that there are no acknowledged experts.

Which brings me to your problem. If you are an expert then you should have no problem in finding secondary sources to support your claims. Photographic evidence would count as primary sources and any interpretation you draw from it as WP:OR original research, hence iridescent's warning of WP:SYN. However, rather than feeling offended and complain, it would make more sense to acknowledge being a newbie and ask iridescent for help. -- Hpvpp (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks for this. I am in fact a sort of expert (structural engineering theoretician with no particular knowledge of bridges) and indeed do not anticipate any problem in locating sources as time goes by. My difficulty with iridescent is that he seems to have banged on about bridges which are long dead-and-gone with a lot of what to me sounds like unsourced 'pov', whereas I am only interested in the bridges which have survived! And he is not even a Wiki Bridges participant. Anyway, despite being a newbie, by and large I get on well with the 'anyone can edit' philosophy and have not prior to this had any probs with 'admins'. So I remain unclear as to where iridesecent was coming from but it's now all water under the bridge (no pun intended). But I'll follow your advice and see if I can get this guy to help. Flying Stag (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of "Multidimensional Family Therapy", and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.strengtheningfamilies.org/html/programs_1999/10_MDFT.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 04:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The link directly above says where it's copied from. Corvus cornix_talk 04:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not my problem - I basically split off the text from Cannabis dependence and improved it. -- Hpvpp (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Multidimensional_family_therapy. Corvus cornix_talk 05:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

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) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply