User talk:Mayumashu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Oleg Alexandrov (talk | contribs) at 03:09, 7 September 2005 (→[[:Category:Canadian mathematics professors]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Wikipedia:Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. To read up on the latest wikinews, have a look at the Wikipedia Signpost. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!
Be bold!



(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:19, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)



Matthew, regarding your recent edit at Canada, please review Wikipedia Style Manual. It advises that you shouldn't over-link, and you shouldn't link ordinary words like "soil". Just link to articles that readers would likely want to follow up on. After you've read this, perhaps you could reconsider those edits. Thanks. Kevintoronto 17:12, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No problem, Matthew. I made the same mistake when I first started, too. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope that you enjoy your time here. Kevintoronto 18:18, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary

Thank you for your categorisation work. I have a small request. Would you mind putting an edit summary, if an edit is not minor, or clicking the "minor edit" checkbox if it is a minor edit. Edit summaries serve a very useful purpose, they notify other people what you have changed and it can save us the trouble of actually taking the diffs to see what is going on. Thanks a lot. Oleg Alexandrov 19:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And a quick remark. If a math article is in a math category, it is kind of unnecessary to put it in Category:Mathematics too. This makes Category:Mathematics quite big. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov

will oblige on categorizing

i see your point now on how better to categorize articles, in particular with the calculus article. regards Mayumashu 01:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. I could have been more diplomatic though. I hope the reversion in calculus did not make you too mad. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov 01:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Finals" tournament

Hi Mayumashu, "finals tournament" is just not proper English. "Tournament finals" is, but it's also a bit over-complicating things. In fact, "final tournament" is correct, as opposed to "final match". Also, when you say "Euro 2004", you imply the final tournament, so no need to add the word there. Sorry to nitpick. --Dryazan 12:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mayumashu, I completely understand what you're talking about. The way "final" can refer to either the game or the tournament is confusing. However, "Finals tournament" makes NO SENSE in American English, whereas "Final tournament" can make sense in British English, as far as I know (and "Tournament finals" makes sense in both, but it also sounds a bit cludgy). While there's no need to push one time of English over another on Wikipedia, it just makes sense (for me, at least) to avoid a phrase which is gramatically incorrect for a larger percentage of Wikipedia's readers. And since RSSSF uses "Final tournament", and so did these pages for months without anything complaining, we should probably go with that. --Dryazan 14:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Japan Intro

Please explain why you changed this paragraph. Check the facts before changing things. As I wrote, there are a FEW island chains extending away from the mainland, but there NOT a few islands extending away from the mainland. Check how many islands there are in Okinawa. Not few (over 300). Also, mentioning Ryukyu Islands and Okinawan islands in one sentence is also redundant because the Okinawan islands is part of the Ryukyu islands. Change it back. Photojpn.org 04:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid getting it "straighter" compared to getting it "straight" is not enough. You introduced another misleading element by saying "some islands." I wouldn't call hundreds of islands "some." There is no need to quantify it. And your sentence "the lower portion of an island chain known as the Ryukyu Islands, which comprise Okinawa prefecture," is too wordy and unnecessary.

The reason why I included Izu/Ogasawara is because the previous version implied that there was only one island chain (Okinawa) extending from the mainland. I wanted to affirm that that wasn't the case.

Please change it back to my original text. There was nothing wrong with it. Photojpn.org 23:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I cannot even fully understand your replies. "i resent being told i have my facts wrong when i had but one so." What does that mean? I'm sure you're a nice guy in person, but obviously you are not a very good writer. This matter is not even worth posting on the Japan discussion page. Photojpn.org 02:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Flags

Hello, the flags are where the players' home towns are, not where they are born. I used the Canadian Soccer website for this infor, and when it was not listed, I did an internet search. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Diacritics

You can use the characters below the edit box - not as fast as typing but it still works. So for example the first five are ÁáÉéÍ. --Henrygb 10:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

footy terminology

Dear Forbsey, a quicky if i may - do Scots call an international (someone who plays for the national side), an internationist? i ve run into the term now a few times and saw where you used it when starting up the page for my favourite soccer player, Gary McAllister, that you used the term. i m wondering if it s a term particularly Scottish or what, as far as you know. appreciate the help, Mayumashu 16:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mayumashu. The term 'internationalist' is used by be personally but I wouldn't say that it was generally used by Scots. More people probably say 'international' when describing an international player but both terms are palatable. However feel free to change it if you feel that 'international' is more relavent in terms of common football jargon.
Forbsey 22:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Statlers

Yep, they were great, and I was a huge fan of their comedy. Rlquall 02:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nova Scotians by Occupation

Hi Mayumashu. I notice you have been using a lot of "Nova Scotian by occupation" type categorizations. While there is precedent for having a People from Nova Scotia cat, breaking it down by occupation is way way overdoing it. There was considerable debate even if occupations should have been broken down by nationality. I strongly recommend that you depopulate these categories (move to the appropriate Canadian by Occupation cats) and put them up for Categories for Deletion. Fawcett5 11:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you added the CfD notice to the categories, but didn't list them at WP:CFD. Just wanted to let you know that if they aren't listed there, they won't be deleted. --Kbdank71 16:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Athletes cats

Hi again Matthew - I see you have been continuing your good work with categorization. For the Canadian track athletes cat though, what do you think about the idea, for consistency, of removing the Canadian track athlete cat from Occupations by nationality and make it instead a subcat of Canadian sportspeople cat? Fawcett5 14:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for deletion

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that simply adding the cfd notice to a category will not delete them. You need to also list the category at WP:CFD. I'll remove the tag for now. If you definitely want to bring the categories up for deletion, please re-add the tag and list it properly. Thanks. BTW, if you need help with this, I'll be happy to lend a hand. --Kbdank71 17:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Categories and parents

I noticed you added Nova Scotia to Halifax Int. Airport. However, that article is already in Nova Scotia via the Airports-->Transport-->Nova Scotia route, and by policy we don't add articles to parents of cats that they are already in. Hope this clears this up. Cheers. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 23:44, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • You have to dig a little bit, but here it is "An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory" Cheers. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 08:45, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Manchester United/History of Manchester United

Hi,

I noticed you'd been working on Man United-related pages and could do with your opinion on something.

The history section was split out of the page last year (I think) but someone then wrote another history section in the main page. Both pages are now well over the recommended maximum size for a Wikipedia article, and it's getting to the stage where I suspect people are editing them without reading them all the way through (which would explain why the Glazer takeover is mentioned twice in Manchester United, in roughly the same amount of detail each time.

So, my idea is to create new pages for different eras in United's history, merge the relevant bits of Alex Ferguson, History of Manchester United and the History section of Manchester United into each new page and put summaries of each new page on Manchester United, with comments asking people not to make the summaries too long. The new articles would have titles like:

  • Manchester United pre-1945
  • Manchester United 1945-1968
  • Manchester United 1968-1986
  • Manchester United 1986-present

I think something like this is necessary to keep the pages manageable, but obviously don't want to make such big changes to other people's work without hearing what people think first. Please let me know what you think, at the Manchester United talk page.


Thanks, Cantthinkofagoodname 11:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For your information...

Blanking pages does not delete them; I'm refering to your blanking of a few redirects to Professional Tennis Championships, ie Hans Gildemeister. There is a procedure for deleting pages: WP:RfD, WP:IfD and WP:VfD. Please follow it next time. Thanks! humblefool® 03:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Barnes

Please do not blank articles without providing some rationale in their discussion page. To do otherwise is vandm at WP:CFD. Just wanted to let you know that if they aren't listed there, they won't be deleted. --Kbdank71 16:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Athletes cats

Hi again Matthew - I see you have been continuing your good work with categorization. For the Canadian track athletes cat though, what do you think about the idea, for consistency, of removing the Canadian track athlete cat from Occupations by nationality and make it instead a subcat of Canadian sportspeople cat? Fawcett5 14:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for deletion

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that simply adding the cfd notice to a category will not delete them. You need to also list the category at WP:CFD. I'll remove the tag for now. If you definitely want to bring the categories up

Central Economy

Page 33 L16 of my Atlantic Canada Road Atlas First Edition by MapArt Publishing. I can scan it in for you if you want to see it. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, alright I will scan it in. I have to install my scanner again, since I havent used it in a while. I reckon it's just an alternate name for economy, as I dont believe my atlas shows Economy. Best regards. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Mmmkay, I wasnt able to get the software working, because my computer collapsed while I was trying to load it, but I did take a photograph of the page, which works just as fine. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

File:DSCN0355.JPG

Categories

Regarding your edits to Category:Cape Breton Island, I just wanted to clarify that Wikipedia actually has very explicit rules about how the category system is applied -- namely, an article should never be simultaneously filed in both a category and a subcategory of that same category. The rule is always that you file an article only in the narrowest appropriate categories that don't directly duplicate each other's informational purpose. In this case, the actual appropriate category is Category:Islands of Nova Scotia; since it's in there, it doesn't also go in "Islands of Canada", "Nova Scotia" or "Canada" since "Islands of Nova Scotia" is already part of the subcategory tree of all of those. This isn't just a matter of my own personal opinion, by the way -- it's actual Wikipedia policy regarding category management. Bearcat 04:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Categories and double spacing

I've noticed that while you've been adding cats and footers to articles, you've been double spacing between them and all the sections. This is not necessary, is non-standard and in truth, makes the article harder to read. Could you please refrain from inserting double spaces between sections? Thanks. Wyss 16:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, you said you'll continue to insert double spacing into articles even though you're aware most do not contain it? Are you aware you're not following consensus? Wyss 09:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Double spacing is not a good idea, for several reasons. The most important one is that the convention (implicit or explicit, it doesn't matter) here is to use single spacing. Whether or not there is a rule that specifically prohibits it is irrelevant: by using double spacing you create more work for other editors, because they will feel compelled to clean up after you. So please try to follow the conventions and editing practices employed in the best articles on Wikipedia. Insisting that you are right and everybody else is wrong is generally unwise and doing things your way could easily be seen as disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Re-adding blank lines is an especially bad idea.

"Whoever" this is that made the above reply, let me say that i have never i conveyed (explicitly nor implicitly, whichever) that others are wrong and i am right on the aesthetics of single versus double spacing between sections. the truth is i should not edit the way articles written by others are spaced nor should wiki editors (i m guessing you have this or a similar position) edit for so-called blank spaces. i ve been disruptive according to the policy you ve cited above ([[WP:POINT|disrupting ...), true. Ironically enough however, the first point the page makes is that there are inconsistencies through the encycl.. editing out double spacing for single spacing because of a consensus among editors and the like (not users at large) is equally disruptive. i will set my default style sheet as suggested by the user who s replied below and i wonder why you, my fellow pedantics, will do the same. - Mayumashu 04:16:59, 2005-08-04 (UTC)

The above was the first paragraph of my message. People remove extra blank spaces all the time. The reason is consistency: if I want more space, I can adjust it in my user stylesheet. But that only gives consistent results if the underlying text uses single spacing. --MarkSweep 05:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Other reasons why adding blank lines before section headings is bad are that it creates inconsitencies across the project and that it takes control over the layout away from readers. The latter is because you can easily adjust the layout of articles by using a custom CSS style sheet. If you prefer double spacing when reading articles, I suggest you modify the default style sheet according to your preferences. See m:Help:User style for further details. Cheers, --MarkSweep 19:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You need to edit User:Mayumashu/monobook.css. Try adding the following content (copy this from the rendered HTML page, not from the raw wikitext, though): 

 /* <pre><nowiki> */
   
 h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6 {
   margin-top: 2em;
 }
 
 .firstHeading {
   margin-top: 0px;
 }

 /* </nowiki></pre> */

If you want more or less space, adjust the "margin-top" property. --MarkSweep 05:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Edward Knatchbull

Hello there. Edward Knatchbull belongs in Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of England because the baronetcy which he inherited was created in 1641. Why did you change the category? Mackensen (talk) 10:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing with Robert Peel. The baronetcy was created in 1800, right before the Act of Union, which places it in Great Britain, not the United Kingdom. Mackensen (talk) 10:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I shouldn't have removed the Natives of Lancashire category. That was my mistake. I'll restore it at once. Mackensen (talk) 11:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Argentine people

Please, bear in mind that Category:Argentine people should not be just categorised by their city/province of birth, but also by more important things such as Category:Argentine people by occupation. If the article has no other Argentine category, perhaps it would be better to give it a (id needed new) sub category of by occupation. thenks, Mariano 12:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category change on Robert Clark (actor)

I'm curious as to why you changed one of the categories on the article Robert Clark (actor) from "People of Ontario" to "Toronto people". As the article states, Clark was born in Oakville, Ontario (which is in the Greater Toronto Area, but is not in Toronto itself), and then moved to Florida, and then back up to Ontario (but not to Toronto). I could find no evidence to suggest that he ever lived in the city of Toronto. Although I backed up my contributions to that article with references, I'm wondering if I got it wrong, and hope that you can clear this up for me. Thanks! Extraordinary Machine 14:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't live anywhere near Toronto, and I'm not familiar with the geography of the area, so if you think the category should be changed back, then I won't object. Thanks for the information! Extraordinary Machine 18:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous entry

As with the above entry i am requesting that you remove the name of Thomas Browne from your list of Cheshire people. Browne was born in London and lived in Norwich from 1637-1682. I am curious as to how you acquired this misinformation. Please remove entry. From reading the above entries this seems to be a persistent mistake of yours,is Wikipedia really about creating lists, or propogating mistakes. Please ammend.Norwikian

Category:Canadian linguists

I saw your changes to Category:Canadian linguists. Since you objected to the use of Template:Fooian scientist types, I've changed it back to Template:Fooian fooers. This moved Category:Canadian linguists back into Category:Linguists by nationality where it belongs, instead of Category:Linguists. I have a Template:Fooian social scientist types that is in use on Category:American linguists that could be a better pick than the fooers template. Would you mind me using that template? The problem with not putting Linguists under Scientists in the national subcategories is that not all national categories have a Social scientists subcat (e.g. Category:Canadian social scientists does not exist, but Category:Polish social scientists does).

Also, I don't think that Category:Canadian anthropologists is accurate, but I left it there. Not all linguists are anthropologists. Mike Dillon 17:06, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. take a look at Category:Canadian scientists. It already has a number of social scientist subcats under it: anthropologists, psychologists, and sociologists. I think that linguists belongs there too until Category:Canadian social scientists exists. Mike Dillon 17:10, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I've started a Category:Social scientists by nationality. Please add your new Category:Canadian social scientists to this category. Mike Dillon 17:29, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Canadian mathematics professors

Hi Mayumashu. I saw that you created this category. I just wonder why you think it was not enough to categorize those articles in Category:Canadian mathematicians. From what I know, most mathematicians are mathematics professors. And I think that the absolute majority of mathematics professors who are not serious mathematicians don't deserve an article on Wikipedia. So in my view, Category:Canadian mathematicians should have been enough for categorizing the notable Canadian mathematicians who are math professors. I wonder what you think. You can reply here, I will keep a watch on this page. Thank you, Oleg Alexandrov 02:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Oleg. I agree 200% with you, and would now like to do away with the math professor cat as well as all professor cats. i created it to form a link between Category:Canadian professors and Category:Canadian academics, but i ve since changed my mind about the matter. i think that being a prof (in itself) is NOT encyclopedically noteworthy and therefore that there should be no Category:Professors cat. anyone who happens to be a prof and encyclopedically noteworthy because of their research contributions should be catted as an academic, according to their field, shouldn t they. i would like to see Category:Professors done away with. i m considering doing away with all the canadian prof sub-cats, but it ll take a bit of work and there are other cat work (my little wiki activity now) i m working on. -Mayumashu 02:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all you need to do is remove the mathematicians from there (put them in Category:Canadian mathematicians) and then put a speedy tag in the category, that is {{d}}. That will work because you created it. You can explain in the edit summary or on the category talk page that you don't find it useful anymore. Oleg Alexandrov 03:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mayumashu&oldid=22745444"