User talk:Timhoooey

Henry Bessemer[edit]

I somehow suspect the authors of the Encyclopædia Britannica - which that article's taken from - had a better grasp of grammatical style than you or I... — iridescent 16:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice that you reverted my edits of the Henry Bessemer article. I was unaware that it was copied word-for-word from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition. I'm a fairly busy student and I added the cleanup tag to the article because I had trouble quickly reading certain sections of it. You seem very knowledgeable of Wikipedia. Do you think that the goal of the encyclopedia should be to adhere to authoritative texts - even when the style of writing is foreign and difficult to read for most users - or to present information in a simple and readable way? I advocate the latter point. Wikipedia articles should be easy to read and presentable as to a layperson. A more appropriate place for preserving the exact wording of the article as it appeared in the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition is the Wikisource project pertaining to it. I am not alone in my view. There is a Wikipedia content guideline regarding the usage of primary sources. It states that material from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica may be used as the basis of an article and that primary source material should be stored in an appropriate repository. Timhoooey 02:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my personal opinion, the 1911 Britannica & 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia articles should by all means be rewritten - see my rewrite of the 1911 version of Plated ware for example - particularly when they've gone out of date; however, since they already have the {{1911}} or {{catholic}} tags on them, tagging them for cleanup is redundant. — iridescent 17:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

It's called discussion. Notice the "talk" button above the page? That's it. Aran|heru|nar 04:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See your talk page. That's where I left a comment about your edit. Timhoooey 04:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to sign your name with four tildes (i.e. shift-` on most keyboards) after you leave a comment. Thanks.

As for the edit, let's discuss it on the talk page of the article. Aran|heru|nar 04:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Math tags[edit]

When you rate a math article using the project banner be sure you put it on the talk page of the article in question. see here vs. here. Cheers—Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 23:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. My mistake. Thanks for fixing it and pointing it out to me. Timhoooey 04:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please fill in the class, field, and priority parameters when you place the template. There is no benefit to the template except to convey rating information, which is why it's called maths rating. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But sometimes I didn't feel knowledgeable enough to determine all 3 of these attributes. In those cases, it seemed better to add the article to the project to increase the chance that another math contributor would see it and potentially add the missing information. However, from now on I'll do my best to fill in the appropriate info. Timhoooey (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you're the guy who wrote the template! Thank you for making it! I've noticed that the quality of the math articles has improved tremendously in the last year or two. I'm confused about your comment. I thought that the purpose of the template was to include articles in WikiProject Mathematics, which aims not just to rate math articles, but to improve them as well. Timhoooey (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write the template from scratch, I just expanded it. On my talk page, you commented about adding articles to the math wikiproject. We already have a list of all the articles in the project - List of mathematics articles - that does not depend on talk page templates. So we don't need to tag articles just to add them to the list; the only function of the template is for article assessment. Even if you aren't sure of the right ratings, adding something is better than nothing. Anyone else can change the rating later, and so it will eventually settle to the correct value. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that clears things up. Thanks for the quick reply! Timhoooey (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Do Rag with Cape.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Do Rag with Cape.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 03:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be deleted. I got it from http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2007/02/ but I think it is a stock image from elsewhere. I wasn't thinking about it at the time but I suppose I shouldn't have uploaded the image without a clearer idea about where it came from. My apologies. Timhoooey (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]