DanO256
Welcome...
Hello, DanO256, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! SpinningSpark 00:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Talk page posts
editI have just undone your last edit to Talk:Twisted pair. You were editing existing comments which makes it very hard to later tell who said what. Talk pages have different rules to the article pages, please take a look at WP:TALK. SpinningSpark 01:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Please explain why you have again edited an existing post on this talk page? This is simply not allowed: if you have something to say, make a new post at the bottom of the thread, but you MUST leave alone the signed comments already posted, even if they are in error. I am assuming that as a new user you are still finding your way around here and are not being deliberately disruptive, but please stop doing this, it will get you into trouble. SpinningSpark 09:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- DanO256 raised some good questions and seems to know the material. If he is used to replying to other forms of threaded discussions, our talk page layout will seem a little strange. --Tothwolf (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm quite happy that DanO256 is a good faith editor and his contributions are valuable. I have allowed his posts to stand where they have not breached WP:TALK. On most forums, it is simply not physically possible to edit previous posts unless they are Wikimedia-based software so I don't accept that this is likely to be a habit picked up elsewhere. SpinningSpark 16:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Spinningspark, What you saw was called interleaved posting, inline posting or inline replying. This is commonly done and considered to be proper netiquette when replying to email lists, usenet newsgroup posts, and the message systems of some bulletin board systems. That posting style does not work here on Wikipedia, which is why we use bottom posting. See also: Posting Style: Top-posting vs. Inline posting --Tothwolf (talk) 05:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- The user's posts were not just interleaving, if it was I would have left it alone even though that is not the best way of replying here. Some of the existing post was also changed and both the original and final indentation was too confused for a reader to be able to work out who had said what. I don't want to be hard on a newbie, but that was the second reversion of substantially the same stuff. SpinningSpark 14:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Spinningspark, Sigh. It is normal and also proper netiquette to trim the original post down to the material you are replying to when making an interleaved or inline reply for email, newsgroups, etc. This is the other reason why we can't use this posting style here on Wikipedia, even though it is common practice elsewhere. When you see someone use this style on Wikipedia, you know they've been using the internet for quite a long time, but just aren't familiar with Wikipedia's way of threading discussions. Perhaps this stuff should be added to one of the help pages somewhere. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I really don't need any lessons in netiquette thanks. One does not trim the original post, one trim a copy of it. And this can be used perfectly satisfactorily on Wikipedia. One just has to master the really difficult task of copy and paste. This is done all the time on article reviews and the like. I don't really understand what your dispute is. We both seem to agree on how posts should be done on Wikipedia and that this user has made a mistake. So what is your beef? SpinningSpark 21:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Spinningspark, Sigh. It is normal and also proper netiquette to trim the original post down to the material you are replying to when making an interleaved or inline reply for email, newsgroups, etc. This is the other reason why we can't use this posting style here on Wikipedia, even though it is common practice elsewhere. When you see someone use this style on Wikipedia, you know they've been using the internet for quite a long time, but just aren't familiar with Wikipedia's way of threading discussions. Perhaps this stuff should be added to one of the help pages somewhere. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- The user's posts were not just interleaving, if it was I would have left it alone even though that is not the best way of replying here. Some of the existing post was also changed and both the original and final indentation was too confused for a reader to be able to work out who had said what. I don't want to be hard on a newbie, but that was the second reversion of substantially the same stuff. SpinningSpark 14:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Spinningspark, What you saw was called interleaved posting, inline posting or inline replying. This is commonly done and considered to be proper netiquette when replying to email lists, usenet newsgroup posts, and the message systems of some bulletin board systems. That posting style does not work here on Wikipedia, which is why we use bottom posting. See also: Posting Style: Top-posting vs. Inline posting --Tothwolf (talk) 05:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm quite happy that DanO256 is a good faith editor and his contributions are valuable. I have allowed his posts to stand where they have not breached WP:TALK. On most forums, it is simply not physically possible to edit previous posts unless they are Wikimedia-based software so I don't accept that this is likely to be a habit picked up elsewhere. SpinningSpark 16:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- DanO256 raised some good questions and seems to know the material. If he is used to replying to other forms of threaded discussions, our talk page layout will seem a little strange. --Tothwolf (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
New Mexico Legislative Memorials
editPlease cease inserting the word "memorandum" into the New Mexico Rail Runner Express article in reference to certain actions by the New Mexico legislature. It is an inaccurate term, is unsourced, and as such represents original research that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. The correct, legal, and CITED term is "Memorial".164.64.74.12 (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
You need to use words that are also in a dictionary with a definition that works within the context.
Memorial is not a word that anyone outside of New Mexico (which I also question) would relate to:
memorial |məˈmôrēəl| noun 1 something, esp. a structure, established to remind people of a person or event : a monument built as a memorial to those who fell in the Civil War.
So where does it mean the correct word memorandum
memorandum |ˌmeməˈrandəm| noun ( pl. -da |-də|or -dums ) a note or record made for future use : the two countries signed a memorandum of understanding on economic cooperation. • a written message, esp. in business or diplomacy : he told them of his decision in a memorandum. • Law a document recording the terms of a contract or other legal details.
You need to be able to make jump to the correct word you failed to do so. Having 'memorial (memorandum)' makes that jump.
Please review how you document this as you need use words as they are used by the majority not the minority. DanO256 (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Your contributed article, Steelhead salmon
edit
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Steelhead salmon. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Rainbow trout. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Rainbow trout - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. RadioFan (talk) 03:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)