User talk:Zigger/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Zigger. 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.

Hello Zigger and welcome to Wikipedia. A few tips for you:

• Peruse Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers and associated pages
• Sign talk page entries with ~~~~, which is automatically converted to a name and date
• Ask questions on Wikipedia:Village pump
• Put something on your user page which is not a truism ;)
• Have fun.

-- Tim Starling 09:49, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Tim. zig 10:38, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Zigger, welcome. Just a point, a stub notice goes on a stub article. Just a stubnote on it's own is not a stub article, sorry. If you just need a placeholder and you're in the process of writing an article now, you don't need to place it. Just upload your text when you're done. Thanks :) Dysprosia 12:49, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Dysprosia. I'm trying to relink various pages pointing to 2 different people with the same name, while adding a third. Eventually I hope to improve my text-to-link ratio. -- zig

Please stop putting the medical disclaimer link in articles. We have already gone over this point and as a result there is a disclaimer link on the top and bottom of every page. Having a link in some articles and not others will give the false impression that the absence of a link means that the article is somehow safer. Wikipedia-specific mentions like that also reuduces the ability of downstream users to use our content. --mav

See MediaWiki talk:Med -- Zigger 20:02, 2004 Mar 6 (UTC)

From deleted MediaWiki talk:Med:

The disputed MediaWiki:med text:

And (for the next few days use the following 'debate' link -- Zigger 18:15, 2004 Mar 29 (UTC)):

• Delete. -- Taku 05:36, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

From deleted Template:VfD-Med:

Following question at User Talk:Jiang#MediaWiki:VfD-Med:
At [3] (you need to be an admin to view it). Do you want it revived? --Jiang 06:44, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Is it absolutely necessary to change Twentieth century to 20th century in articles? I was always taught to avoid numbers in prose if at all possible. -- Graham  :) | Talk 14:53, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. No, it wasn't necessary at all. While editing articles for other reasons, I was conforming to what seemed to be the dominant form. The century articles themselves certainly use numbers for their main titles. If anyone is aware of previous Talk or style meta-articles about this elsewhere (which is likely) I would appreciate being supplied with the link. (I have just added Talk:Centuries to my watchlist, which is probably a good place if anyone wants a new forum to discuss this further.) My only view on the numerals/words choice for centuries in Wikipedia is a preference for consistency. -- Zigger 04:29, 2004 Mar 14 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). (Ignore my advice above about Talk:Centuries.) I'm currently searching through the Talk archives for background ... -- Zigger 04:47, 2004 Mar 14 (UTC)

Summary: the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) currently specifies the format as 20th century. No capitals. Numbers as numerals. Ordinal suffix. Use 10th century BC for 'older' centuries (AD/BC disputed in favour of CE/BCE). Use the format 1700s to refer to a decade. These rules are not requirements, but inconsistent articles are likely to be edited. -- Zigger 05:04, 2004 Mar 14 (UTC)

Loved your space-saving suggestions on the VfD-Main_page discussion. I hope this helps. Oh, I have started signing my name on the back of all my comments to save space: εruτxεT
    N-- lol

I've undeleted it. Before we implemented the current mediawiki scheme, we simply blanked out the section after the article was deleted. Archived deletion debates was for lengthy/controversial votes of deleted articles that could not fit on the main vfd page. No new guidelines have been site for the current format. I thought that since the vote was unanimous, this particular debate wasn't worth keeping. --Jiang 22:30, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

History of EDI was deleted in January, a week after the notice was posted. On April 3rd a sysop deleted a new test page with the same name. When they viewed the deleted edits, they didn't notice the date of the older deleted edits (from January) and undeleted the page thinking that it was still listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. It's been deleted again. Maximus Rex 18:52, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Glad to see someone adding entries to list of legal topics. I did it for a while, but it became too daunting a task. The list is now getting very long and I wonder out loud if it should be divided into more sublists, there is an international law list, a criminal law list, business law, real estate and a few others. Having separate topical lists may be useful for someone searching for specific topics, though a large list does help with a recent changes search. — © Alex756 05:53, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The CCCA spells 'du Pont' that way on their own website in the very list of accepted cars that I read to produce the one on Classic Car Club of America. I'll do some more research to see which one is correct. It could indeed be that the company used both forms at different times. —Morven 17:32, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Zigger, I'm the person who created the article on Neo-Grec. I was wondering about the 'wikified' images. I think that there is some point in having larger or variable size images so that the presentation of the article looks nicer. Especially because the images in the neo-grec article are small to begin with, and zooming doesn't show much more, I was wondering why you wikified them. I sort of prefer it the other way in this case. I'm wondering your thoughts on this. brianshapiro

Can you answer the question for you at talk:Jakarta Project Jay 15:34, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi Zigger: Im obssessed wtih aviation, and I thought it would look nice to identify the other airplane in the Avianca photo. Remember, not everyone can identify other airline logos (actually I think hardly anyone but enthusiasts as me and Arp could). Besides that, you're right, the info has little encyclopedic value. I just thought it would be nice for others to identify the other airplane.

Thanks for reading the article I originated and God bless you!

Sincerely yours, Antonio Wild Flyer Martin

Hi Zigger see my response at User talk:IZAK . You seem to make good sense. Thanks. IZAK 19:02, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi see my reponse at User talk:IZAK, thanks. IZAK 21:19, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)