User talk:Arthfach

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:Lithorien)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome![change source]

Some cookies to welcome you! Face-smile.svg

Welcome to Wikipedia, Lithorien! I'm Nepaxt and an active editor here. Thank you for your changes. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions check out Wikipedia:Questions, or send me a message on my talk page. I like to help new people, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! //nepaxt 02:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the warm welcome and the cookies. I'm glad to be here. It's exciting being on a wiki project where I can contribute positively and feel... well, welcome. Lithorien (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Let me know if you need anything. //nepaxt 02:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Nepaxt beat me by a couple of hours. Oh well. Welcome to Simple anyway! I don't know if this will interest you, but on my user page, there is a section about "low-hanging fruit" which includes a link to a list of Featured Articles from EnWiki (English Wikipedia) where we don't have a corresponding article here. (Actually, only if we don't have a corresponding article under the same identical name). There are several thousand such articles, each well-written with sources and images -- pick any one that interests you (they are sorted into some general categories which makes browsing the list a little easier). They will need to be simplified and attributed, but you may find the list helpful in finding a place to start. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask! Etamni | ✉   04:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing me to the list of articles to be worked on. I'm not sure how much good I will be able to do at copying them over properly, but I'll do my best on a couple of them and see how it works. Hopefully I'll get it right - or mostly right - the first time. Lithorien (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've already looked at some of your work here -- you'll do fine! :) Please do understand that any work you want to do is fine; the list is merely one tool that editors may use to help decide what to write. There is also a list at WP:Requested pages where users have requested specific pages be written or simplified. Happy editing! Etamni | ✉   15:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your question[change source]

To answer your question, its because if you put squiggle brackets it puts the page within on the page your editing whereas normal brackets provide a link.

Oh, cool! Thank you very much. Lithorien (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of IOS 9[change source]

Ambox deletion.png

The page you wrote, IOS 9, has been selected for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. PokestarFan (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

olga chertova[change source]

please, do not delete this page —This unsigned comment was added by Everbesmile (talkchanges) 12:17, 7 February 2016‎ (UTC)

@Everbesmile: I left you a message on your talk page that explains why I nominated your page for deletion. I am not an administrator though, and they are the ones who delete pages. If you would like help making your page better, I can try to help you, or you can ask one of the administrators like Auntof6, Chenzw, or Only for help. --Lithorien (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Landmark cases[change source]

I don't know if this helps or if you were aware of the page but this is a w:List of landmark court decisions in the United States at enwiki. They are organized by subject but it's a long list of cases, most of which we don't have articles on yet. While there must be hundreds of landmark cases, this list from PBS connects to PBS articles on some of the best known cases. When you remove the dissenting opinions, it leaves about 35 or so landmark decisions. That would be a practical number for a template—at least to get started. If you have an interest for creating those articles we don't have, I'd be willing to help. Currently I'm trying to complete the amendments to the Constitution. I like the template idea. User:Rus793 (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the exact links I was basing my list on - the PBS one. I actually did not know about the list on enwiki... I try not to base any work here from articles there. It feels like cheating, and I don't want to unintentionally plagiarize or something like that. We could certainly pull in the case list from there, but I'd agree that there's too many for a template. (If I am misunderstanding what you are getting at, I apologize, I have had an average of 3 hours of sleep per night for the last week.) And my intention is to create the redlinked articles that will go in the template. I may not be a lawyer, but I can write summaries and stubs and find references like a champ. Your help would be extremely appreciated - your work that I've seen on the Constutional amendments is amazing. --Lithorien (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Copying articles from other wikipedias is perfectly allowable. It isn't plagiarizing or a copyright infringement if the person doing the copying provides transwiki attribution. That gives credit to all the contributors at the other project. Not every article at Enwiki is worthwhile copying here but most are. The articles have to be simplified and wikified to be used here. And while it isn't on the list of instructions in Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia, checking the source citations is usually necessary. The quality of sources in articles ranges from junk to excellent. Given there are so few content editors here it's an expedient way to obtain articles. I've both created articles from scratch and copied articles from Enwiki. It takes much longer to create an article from scratch, partly due to the time it takes to find reliable source citations. Anyway, let me know when you'd like some help. User:Rus793 (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More on landmark cases[change source]

I brought over and attributed part of the article List of landmark court decisions in the United States. It's still a work in progress and I only copied a part to better manage simplifying, wikifying and adding source citations. If you want to bring over and work on another section, feel free. The article has already been attributed (see the talk page). If you prefer to work on the red linked cases go right ahead. Then there is the selecting of links for the template. If you don't need any help with the template then I'll leave that project to you. I'm looking forward to being able to add it to the existing landmark case articles. I thought I'd finish the list article before starting on landmark case articles myself. BTW, thank you again for the barnstar. User:Rus793 (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually thinking that with the sheer number of landmark cases on that list, we could potentially build multiple templates/navboxes for it. That would also address Osiris issues on Simple Talk - where people aren't going to look up 'rights for black people' and then jump to 'economic sanctions' or something like that. It might seem like a flood, but it would certainly work well. What do you think? --Lithorien TalkChanges 20:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would assist with the coherency of the templates, but it would still leave an ill-defined topic. It would not address any of the other concerns I raised, such as need, purpose, space and appearance of the articles. The correlation between the links (that is, that they are "landmark" cases) is still too subjective. On articles the size of Roe v. Wade, a bunch of loosely related links are a digression. Consider whether your idea meets the the guidelines. Osiris (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you were to do as you say, and separate the cases by issue, but also drop the "landmark" qualifier and restrict additions to mostly blue links, then that would make them useful from my perspective. Osiris (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you're thinking of something more like [[Template:United States Supreme Court $insert_subject_here cases]]? Where the variable is something like "individual rights", or "education", or things of that nature? --Lithorien TalkChanges 22:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. As long as it's without the landmark bit. Osiris (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and also, I do hear you about copying over from enwiki. I don't disagree that it is much faster and usually easier. It's just something I don't like to do, that's all. But that's just me. --Lithorien TalkChanges 20:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Osiris made several good points. Multiple navboxes, especially if kept simple and are defined by recognizable topics is definitely a good idea. And the list article he suggested is already in progress. As for topics, take a look at the section titles in the Enwiki article. I had planned to keep them essentially the same as they're brought here. See if they don't offer a way to organize the cases into several templates. Or, if you have a different idea for topics, perhaps we could incorporate them into the article here. Better now than have to reorganize it later. I'm currently working on the Individual rights section. I understand what you're saying on creating new articles from scratch and I can't disagree. Again, I use both methods, but I'm usually more pleased with the results when the article is created here and not copied. User:Rus793 (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar![change source]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Lithorien, I award you this barnstar for all the good changes you have made so far here at SEWP! *applause* Your contributions are valued. Thank you for helping out! I hope you will stick around. Yottie =talk= 00:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Yottie: Great Spirits... I don't know what to say except thank you. I never expected to get a barnstar for my editing. You just put a huge smile on my face that will be there for a long time, I think. Thank you so much. --Lithorien TalkChanges 01:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly deserve it. Keep up the good work :) --Yottie =talk= 20:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar[change source]

The Citation Barnstar The Citation Barnstar
Thanks for your involvement in the Big Reference Weekend 2016 Peterdownunder (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of landmark court decisions in the United States[change source]

Hi Lithorien. Just to let you know, Fuhvah and I have both started working on Landmark cases. So I wanted to let you know you now had help. Fuhvah was great at jumping in to finish the Constitutional articles series and is easy to work with. Let me know if you have any particular areas you'd like to work in. You can follow our conversations at User talk:Fuhvah. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rus793: Hello! I appreciate the ping on his user page and the notice just now. I'm glad to see that you two have started the work on landmark cases - it looks like it's going very well. Unfortunately, I am currently stuck on a ship out to sea, so my editing time is limited (think <10 minutes/day), so until I get back to land in mid-April, I won't be much help working on much of anything here. When I get back, I'll be sure to contact you and Fuhvah about what still needs to be done (if anything) and throw some time in to edit. Again, thank you so much for the notice! --Lithorien TalkChanges 04:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The list is large and, as yet, neither of us has brought over the remaining half of the list from Enwiki. So there will be a considerable number of articles left to do when you get back. Enjoy your trip. User:Rus793 (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback by PokestarFan[change source]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Arthfach. You have new messages at User:PokestarFan/sandbox/List of Ancient Greek Philosphers.
Message added 01:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

PokestarFan (talk) (My Contribs) 01:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[change source]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Arthfach. You have new messages at Auntof6's talk page.
Message added 23:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I replied to your comment. LaurenCox600 (chat me!) 23:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFCU[change source]

Are you trying to see if I'm a sock of them? I'm not. I'm not even related to them and I'm not the same person. And please reply to me there before a CU chews me up for no freaking reason. --LaurenCox600 (chat me!) 12:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC) LaurenCox600 (chat me!) 12:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are indeed not related to them, then you have nothing to be concerned about. Checkusers will not "chew [you] up" for no reason. Chenzw  Talk  12:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Chenzw I am worried that some CU might chew me up for no reason. Why am I being checked there than smh? Could you reply to my comment there before I get chewed up. By the way thanks for crossing out my edit I accidentally edited while logging out. Just trust my comment there because whoever made a CU request about me is delusional and idiotic because that person is trying to get me blocked or something. Just because I resemble someone doesn't mean I'm related so I shouldn't have my name mentioned there. --LaurenCox600 (chat me!) 13:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I said it before, if you have done nothing, no CU will do anything to you. Whether or not Lithorien (or me) replies to the RFCU page is irrelevant to how the CUs will process the request. Chenzw  Talk  13:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You should reply there. Litho risen is just a delusional person who thinks I am related or the same person as these 2 accounts. Could you reply to my comment there at WP:RFCU#LaurenCox600 before a CU does. Thanks! --LaurenCox600 (chat me!) 13:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will not. Whether Lithorien is "delusional" is not for you to decide. For that matter, why are you so anxious about this? It sounds like you are hiding something. Chenzw  Talk  13:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so anxious about this because I am mentioned at WP:RFCU and Lithonen thinks I am related to Krett12 and Computer Fizz and well guess what, I'm not even related to them and not am I the same person as them. I even commented on that page. I edited same day Computer Fizz retired and trust me when I say this I am not related to them and I'm not the same person as them just because I resemble them. Just because I resemble them doesn't mean I'm related to them. Chenzw, now please reply to my comment at WP:RFCU#LaurenCox600 before anyone else does. Thanks! --LaurenCox600 (chat me!) 13:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Chenzw also sometimes I accidentally edit when logging out please delete that revision since I accidentally logged out editing. Thanks! --LaurenCox600 (chat me!) 13:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@LaurenCox600: I am sorry that you feel that I am "delusional and idiotic" for asking for a CU on you. I explained my concerns clearly on the CU page. My hope is that - if you are checked - that you aren't connected with any other editor. You show passion and that's a good thing in an editor. However, I appreciate and value the work on the SEWP that everyone has done and want the project to continue on a good path; I don't believe that sock puppets are appropriate for a healthy Wiki, and so that's why I asked. That being said, I am not going to reply to this thread any further. Happy editing! --Lithorien TalkChanges 18:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a sock though I was scared I was going to be blocked when you made the CU request. I even replied to you on WP:RFCU. And if your wondering I am not a sock. Feel free to reply at the CU page to me if you like. Regards, --LaurenCox600 (chat me!) 19:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[change source]

I can't see any reference to intersex here. Trankuility (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nor here. Trankuility (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Trankuility: It is, but it's called hermaphrodism - page 3-86, number 14.
You're absolutely right. I last looked at that kind of regulation back in 2012 when I was joining the Navy, and disregarded that they were changed since then to be more inclusive. Self-reverted, and nice catch! Lithorien TalkChanges 14:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I'm interested if the previous version framed hermaphroditism as GID or as a physical disqualification. It seems odd to have classed it as an identity issue. It's not as if "don't ask don't tell" could apply. Trankuility (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FurryBeast Draft Page[change source]

I recently just read your message. I was thinking about how can you create a draft page? FurryBeast (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FurryBeast: Well, in your case, you could create the page at a place like (basically, just add a /$name to the end of your user page) and work on it there. Lithorien TalkChanges 16:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]