User talk:Nikro

Welcome to my talk page. Be free to discuss and debate, but remember, no matter what, obey the rules.

RULES

:-]

This user is polite and expects others to act accordingly.

This user is a member of Wikipedians against censorship.

And all debates should be said in it's category

Policy

AIC link and namespaces

Hello, I removed the link you placed on AIC. This is because on wikipedia we like to keep the 'article space', where the articles are, seperate from the other namespaces, like the Wikipedia namespace, where there is information about wikipedia. This is also why your 'article in construction' page was moved to 'wikipedia:articles in construction': it was moved from the article namespace to the wikipedia namespace. ssepp^(talk) 14:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Scientific Beliefs

A tag has been placed on Scientific Beliefs, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Vgranucci 06:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently recreated or reposted material at Scientific Beliefs which previously was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies. Please do not recreate this article without prior approval from an administrator or you may be blocked from editing. We ask that you respect what Wikipedia is not. If you disagree with the article's deletion, you may seek an independent deletion review. Rockpocket 06:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can always work on it in your user space and get it into shape. I have to agree with the decision to make it into a redirect, it was very embryonic to dsay the least. David D. (Talk) 19:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC

It wasn't meant to be a redirect, it was on AIC meaning it is supposed to be the way it was, or incomplete, so other Wikipedians could edit it to completion, AIC isn't a redirection page, it's a help page, to provide the help of other wikipedians to complete articles that's submitted by users whom don't have the information to complete the article, if Scientific belief's topic is the same as Philosophy of science. then tell me, and Scientific Beliefs will be done for.

I have no idea what scientific beliefs are, I'll find out once your article is more coherent. With respect to the AIC stuff i do not understand your points above. Your explanation seems muddled, for example "meaning it was supposed to be the way it was"? And you try and explain the mechanism for the function of AIC with "to provide the help of other wikipedians to complete articles that's submitted by users whom don't have the information to complete the article" but how are these articles submitted? David D. (Talk) 02:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something here? Isn't the entire point of Wikipedia that all articles are under construction? Just start an article and, the chances are, someone will come a long and collaborate with you. If you need expert help, there are templates you can use to attract attention (Template:expert) and Wikiprojects where you can work together with people with common interests. Having a page for general articles are under construction seems completely redundant to me. Rockpocket 03:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AIC can be helpful. And nothing is wrong with AIC, it follows the policys correctly, and it's lived throught two deletion tags, so appearantly same people find it's qualities unique or good enough. And for David D. if you mean, "How do you pot articles on AIC,"

the answer can be found at it page, Here.

No, I know how to list an article there but who will see it? Nothing links to that page. And as Rockpocket mention look at all the stubs that are already on wikipedia. There is no reason an article has to be finished to be included. However, you need to work on the style. Your current scientific belief article is nothing but an outline, I assume that is why it was deleted. Clearly this topic will be contested so even a good article might get deleted if i is deemed original research. What are your sources? David D. (Talk) 03:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to find suitable place for links. anyone who want's to help search may. and i said that i needed to know if Scientific Beliefs is about the same topic as Philosophy of science, and if it was, I'd end it. so are their topics the same?

I have no idea if they are the same. Best place to ask is talk:Creationism or talk:Intelligent design. If you link your article to those talk pages then you may get some input too. David D. (Talk) 04:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikro, I answered your post at the Village Pump, and removed the Stub tag from the article as you requested. I also left a couple suggestions at the Pump for how to improve the article...having verifiable sources is the most important part.

Regarding your attempts to create a Scientific Beliefs article: I think that one problem with the article is a "self-identity" issue. On Wikipedia we feel it's important that people and groups be allowed to define themselves. For example, if we have a bio of a person who claims to be a Christian, we have to report that they are a Christian, or at least that they refer to themselves as a Christian. We're not allowed to say "But they aren't a good Christian" or "Real Christians don't do what this person did".

By the same token, we have to accept scientists' definition of what Science is. And to a scientist, the word belief is absolutely the wrong word to use. Scientists observe phenomena, analyze data, and try to draw accurate conclusions from it. Belief never enters the picture. For a much better explanation of this, read Scientific method which is a good article on the subject; I hope it will answer some of your questions. Good luck and happy editing. Doc Tropics 04:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okey, hay, did anyone know that only 10-20% of the scientist believe in that scientific stuff [4.5 billion years ago and stuff like that.] the other 80-90% are other religions, and they have proof that this world is young, and all that stuff. Just wanted to mention it. Nikro 11:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of article in construction

Hello, I have proposed that article in construction be deleted. See Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Active_discussions for the deletion discussion. ssepp^(talk) 21:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance

About the Snake Project

Do you want the pictures on the main state page? Or in the actual snake's page? If on the main one, I suggest a table.

--Mooshykris 02:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The states page. Thank you

§→Nikro 11:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technical

Miscellaneous

Reply

I'm just dropping by to let you know that I replied to the comment you left on my talk page. In the future, it would be helpful to other users if you would sign comments you leave on talk pages by putting for tilde characters (~~~~) at the end. This will be replaced by your username and and the date, which helps people keep track of who said what when. It looks like this: The Storm Surfer 13:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just dropping by to let you know that I replied to your question on my talk page. -- Boracay Bill 05:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Comments

Are you spying on me? I mean, no matter which discussion i make or git into, your there, and your envovled in everything I do, and everything envolving me, like AIC. §→Nikro 20:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to help make wikipedia the best it can be. As part of that, I pay attention to your actions, as is my right. ssepp^(talk) 22:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody assigns jobs on wikipedia. People volunteer where they think they can be useful (ideally). ssepp^(talk) 22:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about WP:administrators? 23:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

re:link

It is here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article in Construction. ssepp^(talk) 00:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. snakes

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article List of U.S. snakes, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Realkyhick 00:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please sign all your messages. "No Signature Given" doesn't make sense. Now the main point: If are intending to make a list of snake varieties by state, then the title needs to be changed to "List of U.S. snakes by state" or something similar. Having said that, such a list will be extremely difficult to maintain, and unless you are personally willing to do much of the work (as opposed to just putting up the empty shell and saying, "OK, folks, help me out here"), then it probably won;t go anywhere and will end up being deleted. I suggest doing it by regions instead, such as southeast, northeast, etc. Realkyhick 01:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suit yourself, but like I said — unless you're willing to take on the research yourself, it's probably going to sit there as a barely-filled list for a while, and then it will be formally submitted as an article for deletion. Realkyhick 01:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see where you're going with this now. It makes a little more sense. I thought you were going to put the list of snakes for each state on this particular page, but now I see that you're breaking it out to a page per state. That's much better. However, there are still a couple of minor issues...

1. To follow Wikipedia naming conventions, you should title each article "List of snakes in (state name)" instead of "List of (state name) Snakes." This will make it easier for people to find the article either with a search, in Wikipedia or with a search engine like Google, and people are more likely to come up with the correct title on their own when searching. 2. This project seems like it would be well-served with a navigational template that would put a list of state abbreviations in a box at the bottom of each page. I will tackle this template myself and post an example for you in the next day or two. You've seen this sort of thing before on Wikipedia articles, such as the ones at the bottom of the Snake article itself. In fact ... I just found an existing template that I could modify, so now {{SnakesByState}} is done. All you have to do is put {{SnakesByState}} at the bottom of each page, and readers can navigate to any state list from any other. I just did it for Alabama and Arizona, and also moved the pages to new names to conform to the naming conventions. Realkyhick 15:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The SNAKE PROJECT

The Snake Project needs helper and users to help create anf finish the articles. For more information about the project, visite my userpage.

§→Nikro 08:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blind Snakes

Hi. As a snake enthusiast, you may want to take some time to read and join WP:AAR and discuss your subject with fellow enthusiasts there. There are some well established conventions for article naming. The new article created by you does not follow the general convention and the content there will need to be moved to the pre-existing Blind snake, unless you can provide a rationale for the pluralization, capitalization and duplication. Also please note the paraphyletic nature of the group which makes the taxobox unsuitable for use. Shyamal 15:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]