User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search






re: Help Desk problem[edit]

Ah, you mean in Wikipedia's internal search tool. It's normal. It takes a little bit for it to update. Try searching again a day or two from now. :) You may also be seeing a redirect. Lawrence Tribe is a redirect to Laurence Tribe, the correct spelling of the former.Cheers. -- Obsidin Soul 07:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

High & Mighty[edit]

Hi Rich, For the most part the disambiguation pages are to direct readers to other similarly named articles (or, if you prefer articles which have names that lead to ambiguity), not just to be a depository for phrases and their origins. If "high and mighty" were as well known as say, "To be or not to be" then it would merit inclusion. To wit, the soliloquy that begins with those famous words has its own page, To be, or not to be. I am not doubting its influence as Hamlet itself accounts for so much of our daily expression, and it is totally possible that the phrase from Hamlet is the direct or indirect inspiration for every other instance of the pairing of those words -- but that would need a published source. As to its value or perceived importance in regards to Hamlet, I point your attention to a whole article on Phrases from Hamlet in common English which does not contain that quote. Mayhaps you should add it there? And then link to that page rather than the play Hamlet?
Also, a few pointers: One, I highly suggest registering as a user. Editors are much more suspicious when the see a string of edits done in quick succession by an IP address. Two, as hinted above, use the "Show preview" option before saving, especially when you're new. You can even click the wikilinks from the preview to test out that you've got them exactly right. This way you only need to save one time and the edit history can contain a nice, neat single entry for the sum of your work, again, it looks more credible and professional and less suspicious when done this way.
So, in short, what you made was what is called a "good faith" edit, but it was still not quite appropriate for being on the disambiguation page. I'd suggest (after you get a username) working on incorporating it in the article I mentioned above first, and then trying to see if you can find any sources that illustrate the phrase's use and preponderance stemming from Hamlet. Best of luck, JesseRafe (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you are patronizing, although well meaning, about my professionalism and credibility. I think that it would be best to put just Shakespeare's quote on the disaamb link. I hope you consider this a bit more.Best wishes, (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
One, it is a bit rude to call me patronizing -- I explained things to you as someone who doesn't understand wikipedia, and your reply is further evidence that you do not. It is not "my" decision about that quote, another editor will happen to come along and remove it as well. Why would you not see the merit in my advice? Surely the realm of "Phrases from Hamlet in common English" is smaller than the entire English-speaking universe. So why would a quotation not important enough to be included in the former merit inclusion in the latter? Also, you still don't understand the use or significance of the disambiguation page. It's not meant to be an article per se, but actually a functional working of wikipedia to get people to the right places where other articles are written, not information about that term. Take for example, John. Notice it is a disambiguation page, there is no information about the name John itself there, such as its origin, all of that type of information is found on John (given name).
Furthermore, you completely missed the point about what I took the time to say about getting a user name rather than using your IP address, please re-read it. Again, it's not what I think about your credibility, in fact, it's not about you at all. And that's precisely the point. I don't even know if this is the same person, it could be a computer in a library, that's why it's important to be identified as a user. Users with names can establish their credibility, etc., but IPs are generally scrutinized more closely. JesseRafe (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jesse, I thought for a while before giving my answer above--You put so much effort into phrasing your advice to me in a nice way, that I didn't want to tell you I felt patronized. But I did feel patronized. I think it is possible I knowa bit, maybe not a lot, more than you think I do. I've knocked around here for 7 years actually. Agreed, I'm not an expert on disambig pages, but whether you are an expert on it or not,it seems sensibler to me that a quote from Shakespeare should get equal standing with an as yet minor rock group. As for getting myself a username, I had and still have one, but I tried to kick my wikipedia habit. My sporadic efforts are breakdowns of will and I try not to use my username to keep myselfe from falling back into the groove. I would prefer not to discuss these personal issues further. Best wishes, Rich Peterson — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
That you're using another IP address now is exactly my point. And why would you bring up your personal issues and then say you don't want to talk about them? Honestly, who cares? You could've just said nothing about it and no one would know or bother you about it. The quote from Shakespeare is insignificant. It does not have its own article, nor is it even in the very long list of quotes from Hamlet. It is your belief that it belongs on the disambig page, not a fact. The High Mighty hip hop group has sold hundreds of thousands of records, which is a fact. That is why they are significant and have an article on them on wikipedia. That is what the disambiguation process is about. End of story. JesseRafe (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Jesse, the reason I momentarily brought up personal issues was to explain why I wasn't taking your (personal) advice. "High and mighty" isn't a big deal to me. I asked you about it, and if your response had been only your polite negative, that would have been the end of it. But,from the best of motives, you gave me advice; and I felt you were casting me as a newbie, which I felt could unleash on me a flood of advice from other well intentioned people like you. Anyway, if you make another reply here I promise to let your reply be the last word, unless you request a reply. Then can we drop this? I'm sure that's what we both want. Best wishes, (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sam Sloan talk page[edit]

I just wanted to let you know that maybe you didn't notice the dates, but you just replied to a conversation that is over 5 years old. It is extremely unlikely that anyone from that original conversation is still following. If you have a new point to raise, it's probably best to do so at the bottom of a talk page. Be sure, though, that you're not just speculating, that you have actual sources to support your position. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, I am suggesting caution, both on a BLP standpoint and on an ethical standpoint. It is not clear whether the fake email situation has been straightened out. In any case, I don't need sources to support caution. You said "It is extremely unlikely that anyone from that original conversation is still following." That is speculation. You said "Be sure, though, that you're not just speculating, that you have actual sources to support your position." Thus you are advocating caution also. Should I demand you provide sources for your caution? (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Rich, Qwyrxian isn't criticizing you for suggesting caution as much as he is trying to be helpful in pointing out that for many editors such conversations on talk pages tend to "die". It is very common to resurrect items for discussion on talk pages as a new section entirely, even if you reference the previous discussion, after a year after the last comment, let alone five years. Please remember, that the majority of the messages you'll get here are not about you but about Wikipedia so don't be so quick to be defensive. JesseRafe (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I do agree that caution is warranted on all BLPs. I guess my real concern was basically exactly what JesseRafe pointed out: if you were actually recommending that action be taken on the article, putting your comment into the middle of a 5 year old discussion made it likely that the comment would simply be overlooked, and thus if there was something you actually wanted changed, that a better way to make that comment was in a new section. Probably what I should do is set up archiving on that talk page, as is standard practice; that way, the old discussions are preserved, but are moved to an archive so that only current discussions remain. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)