User talk:Fnarf999

Welcome!

Hello, Fnarf999, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! :) - Mailer Diablo 21:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome also from the Opera Project

Welcome! and Hi. I see you have added Raimondi to the basses! We need an article on this wonderful singer. I wonder if you would have time to contribute one? - Kleinzach 08:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

baking oven

Why delete this article, it is expandable with "household" oven pictures, which are not completely un-important. The oven article would get hudge...
Probably you may suggest to delete split-articles of transformer for deletion as well - the time when i have created them.
Adds nothing - this is not a reason for deletion - check Afd policies which say a stub of just a few lines is not a deletion reason.
It is not an unexpandable dictionary definition.
If you suggest other tiny articles (of mine) for deletion, not related to policies, then i do not take it (see CTR-L my signature).
Looks you are new here, you should read the policies if you haven't already. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 09:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Baking oven includes no information, just verbiage. You insist that it is the only place where food preparation is mentioned, but that is simply wrong. And even if it wasn't, the solution to an omission in an article is not to create a new article with the missing information. Add it to the Oven article. The suggestion that people use the phrase Baking oven instead of just Oven in English is wrong and absurd.Fnarf999 15:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yuo are not wrong. However i thought it right, because other oven pages already do exist, such as microwave oven, industrial furnace, which do not do any baking! It is not only the question of spoken english, also how is it called by manufacturers, or the technically exact label. I do not mind extending the oven article, thought it better to keep it short. People might search for "baking oven"? It does not really do damage. I do not insist on things, if people show up new/good arguments. Sometimes i try to defend a position. User:Akidd_dublin 9 may 2006

low quality of my edits

I was more sucessful with MiniDisc and Yahoo! Groups. Sometimes i try to rework articles, which are made up from confusing grammar, especially to ordinary people (End-user_computing). I do not believe this is real OR, just not well enough spelled out. This is probably a term used within Artificial_Intelligence. Other times i must be careful not to misunderstand people for computer terminals: they are not programable. User:Akidd_dublin 9 may 2006

Aztec calendar

I do not see a real reason for removal (no advert), Aztec Calendar.
Do you have anything to do with this article? You might consider to take a look the village pump (Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)), real social dynamics, and try to bite them for deletion. It gets deleted after a week automatically. If you do not like this writing, then please refrain from attacking my edits.
If you just attack my edits, and do not write to my talk page, i do not believe that's the way it goes here.
You are welcome to express your concerns about bad edits there: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy), or where it suits otherwise (Wikipedia:Village_pump).
If you continiue attacking my edits, i am going to write about you, there.
This has no threat meaning, but it looks you really browsed a list of contributions, which i created myself... Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 10:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for removal are simple: you're not supposed to insert external links to web pages that you yourself have created. It's immaterial whether there are "adverts" in the page. If the information in your page is compact, interesting, valuable, and not original research, then it belongs in the page, not elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a collection of links.Fnarf999 15:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth does "no threat meaning" mean? That's not English. And frankly it does sound like some kind of threat, of what I can't imagine. I did browse your contributions, because I stumbled across a couple of them that indicated a stylistic problem which I have described elsewhere. You insist on arguing small inconsequential points that make no sense. For example, in Talk:Red hair, the business about the Gaiety Theatre and Cockney slang -- the information you added is both wrong and completely irrelevant -- as irrelevant as a recipe for ginger cookies would have been. Wikipedia is not nonsense.Fnarf999 15:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i caused that some passages of the Red_hair article vanished overnight. It made me both happy, and a bit of sad for the author. But wikipedia is not a platform for the politics of "special population groups", especially spreading their data into various articles. The formula means, i do not have an intention of creating threads against anyone. If the village pump is used for arguments, this is much better: after 7 days it gets deleted automatically.

Wikipedia is not a link directory. An article is allowed to have a tiny link section, see matsuri, even more of it makes sense. It is difficult to copy my calendar table into the article, anyway if i keep the color coding it looks very remarkable. This is legal (to use html), but there is recommendation to use it sparingly.

I don't want to argue about the Gaiety_Theatre stuff anymore. It is gone from the article. I believe its name has something to do with the original french word. They aren't q-uea at all. I really try to do correct spelling/grammar, and reading your critics, i try my best (see superstition, i plan to rewrite it). Lucky for me you have produced cooled down replies, and not more forest-fire.User:Akidd_dublin